VIKAS SINGHATIA Vs. PRITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/husband preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. against order dated 22/03/2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Criminal MJC No. 743/2012, whereby the application filed by the non-applicant No.1 under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month for non-applicant No.1 and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month with respect to non-applicant No.2.

(2.) The facts adjudicated the present petition is that non-applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before Family Court, Indore and the same was allowed vide order dated 01/10/2009 in Criminal MJC No. 379/2009, the applicant-Vikas was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present applicant has preferred Criminal Revision No. 1317/2009 before this Court, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 26/08/2011. Thereafter, non-applicant No.1 preferred an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and the same was allowed by impugned order dated 22/03/2016 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs.8,000/- and Rs.4,000/- per month to non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively instead of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month. This order is a subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant No.1 is educated lady and she has done M.SC., therefore, she is capable for maintaining herself. It is also submitted that when the marriage of applicant was solemnized with non-applicant No.1 at that time applicant was working in the Company, however, he was pressurized by the Company for working outside the country or left the job. He refused the proposal and resigned from the aforesaid company. At present, the applicant is not having any source of income and he is unemployed. It is further submitted that nonapplicant No.1 has exonerated the income of the applicant by making false documents in order to get enhanced maintenance amount. The family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed error in enhancing the maintenance amount. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for setting aside of the impugned order.