SUREKHA SUBHASH SANER Vs. SUBHASH GAJMAL SANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 372 of 2010, which was pending in Sessions Court, Jalgaon. The revision was filed by respondent against the judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon delivered in Criminal M.A. No. 98 of 2010. The application filed for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code was allowed by J.M.F.C. and maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000 per month in favour of each of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent and petitioner No. 2 is unmarried daughter of petitioner No. 1. The Sessions Court has set aside the decision of J.M.F.C., by observing that the amount of salary to the extent of 3,500 Was already attached in view of the order made by the Civil Court and the present petitioners were getting at least Rs. 5,500 per month by way of maintenance. The Sessions Court has observed that husband was getting hardly Rs. 6850 as take home salary and so, enhancement was not possible.

(2.) This Court has carefully gone through the record which includes copies of the proceedings filed for divorce and copies of evidence. The record also includes certificates issued by the institutions, where the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly serving as 'Anganwadi Sevika' and they are to the effect that the institution Was not paying anything by way of salary or honorarium to the petitioner No. 1 though for some time she was serving with them. On the other hand, there is the admission of respondent that he was getting around Rs. 20,000 by way of salary at the relevant time. Sixth Pay Commission was not made applicable at that time, but he was getting such salary.

(3.) The maintenance proceeding was filed in the year 2003 by the petitioners and it was decided in the year 2005. The enhancement proceeding was filed in the year 2010. It is the case of present petitioners that on the date of their petition, present respondent was getting at least Rs. 20,000 by way of salary, the needs of the present petitioners have increased, petitioner No. 2 was attending college and she needs more amount. It is their case that as the prices of essential commodities have increased many times since the year 2005, and so, they require more amount for maintenance. The husband had taken a defence that he was required to pay from his salary the maintenance amount awarded by Civil Court and so, he was not in a position to give more amount. He had contended that the wife was getting at least Rs. 14,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month from maintenance amount and other resources.