ANUPAMA AND OTHERS Vs. FATEH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.5.2015 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Hisar, whereby while deciding the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), moved by the petitioners, they were granted an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is very difficult for the petitioners to maintain themselves by this meager amount of Rs.6,000/- per month for all three petitioners. He further submits that petitioner No.1-wife is a handicapped lady as she is polio affected, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are school going children. He concluded by submitting that since the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the true facts of the case, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified raising the maintenance amount in favour of the petitioners. He prays for allowing the present petition.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant one has not been found to be a fit case warranting interference, at the hands of this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, for the following more than one reasons.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), would show that the learned District Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter in minute details and finally came to the judicious conclusion, granting an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the petitioners. It has been so ordered by the learned Family Court in spite of the fact that husbandrespondent No.1 was found to be earning only Rs.3,000/- per month as he was working with an Advocate in the District Courts, as Clerk/Munshi. Further, nothing contrary has been shown either before the learned District Judge or even before this Court to suggest even remotely that the respondent has been earning handsome amount and he was in a position to pay more amount towards monthly maintenance to the petitioners. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Family Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgment and the same deserves to be upheld.