NARESH ARORA Vs. SMT. JYOTSANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this criminal revision Petition, the petition has challenged the order dated 5.12.2009 passed by learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. Brief facts of the case are that respondents filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court mentioning therein that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 30.8.1999. Thereafter, one baby respondent No. 2 Kumari Nidhi Arora @ Kanika was born on 29.10.2000. On 19.12.2000 the petitioner sent the respondents to Jaipur alone through the roadways bus forcefully, since then respondents are residing at Jaipur. The learned Family Court vide order dated 2.8.2003 directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 1500/ - and Rs. 700/ - to the respondents. She again filed an application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount. Upon this application the learned Family Court modified the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/ - in -stead of Rs. 1500/ - for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/ -instead of Rs. 700/ - vide order dated 5.12.2009.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 is the second wife of petitioner and the first wife of the petitioner Smt. Mohini died and left one son Kartik. Petitioner is not having good behaviour towards the respondents. The respondents failed to produce the documents with regard to income and status of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is a qualified lady and having the qualification of diploma in Computer. The respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,000 -12,000/ - per month. Thus, the order passed on the application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. be quashed and set aside.

(3.) E -contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Family Court on an application filed under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. rightly enhanced the amount maintenance because the petitioner is running a good business at Chavdi Bazar, New Delhi and earning a very handsome amount from such business and the respondent No. 1 is legal wedded wife of the petitioner. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the order dated 5.12.2009.