(1.) Since the revisional application itself is taken up for hearing, the C.R.A.N. application is not required to be disposed of separately.
(2.) The Petitioner herein is the husband of the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Soma Dutta. Soma Dutta initiated a proceeding under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Misc. Case No. 330 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur. On 5.5.2004, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur directed the Petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 1,000/ -to the wife and Rs. 750/ - to the minor child in every month towards their interim maintenance. The order was challenged in the revisional application being No. 409 of 2004 which was disposed of on 9.6.2004 and the learned Sessions Judge directed the Petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 800/ - and Rs. 500/ - to the wife and the minor, respectively per month till disposal of the main application. A Misc. Execution Case No. 5 of 2006 was filed by the wife for arrear maintenance. An order was passed by the learned Magistrate directing the Petitioner/husband to pay that amount. That order dated 6.4.2006 was challenged in the revisional application being C.R.R.1844 of 2006 in this Court and this Court directed the Petitioner/husband to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,000/ - within a period of four weeks and stayed the execution proceeding during the pendency of the said application with a direction to the learned Magistrate to hear out the application under Sec. 125 of the Cr. P.C. finally. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after giving both the parties opportunities of being heard, disposed of the application under Sec. 125 of the Cr. P.C. directing the opposite party/Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 500/ - to the wife and the children, respectively in every month. That order was challenged again in a revision being C.R. Rule 172 of 2007. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Tamluk allowed the revisional application being C.R.R.172 of 2007 increasing the quantum of maintenance suo moto to the tune of Rs. 1200/ - and Rs. 750/ -, for the wife and the minor, respectively from Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 500/ -. The Petitioner/husband has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the said order.
(3.) Mr. Arindam Jana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/husband takes me to the paragraph 13 at page 8 of the C.R.A.N. application taken out by the wife/opposite party and draws attention of this Court to the pay slip of the opposite party/husband annexed thereto as annexure -"A". He contends that the gross income of the opposite party/husband is Rs. 15,600/ - per month and total deduction therefrom is Rs. 3325/ -. He receives a sum of Rs. 8975/ - per month as his take away home amount. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned First Revisional Court in revisional application No. 172 of 2007 is unreasonable, exorbitant and not in consonance with the income of the opposite party/husband. He submits further that the order increasing the amount of maintenance was passed suo moto by the revisional Court which is not permissible.