BIBHUTI BHUSHAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the Family Court enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 800 to Rs. 2,000, to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who are the wife and daughter of the petitioner.

(2.) INITIALLY , the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 800 (Rs. 500 + 300) to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in Cr. Misc. Case No. 5/98. As the opposite party No. 2 found it difficult to maintain herself and her daughter (O.P. No. 3) with the said sum of Rs. 800 fried a petition under Section 127, Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, inter alia, submitting that the petitioner is a teacher, working in a Government School and earning a sum of Rs. 12,000 and that he also has other source of income. The Family Court, Dumka allowed the petition and directed enhancement of maintenance, as narrated above. The present revision is against the said order.

(3.) I find no substance in the said argument. The order of the Family Court shows that opposite party No. 2 has to spend for the educational expenses of the opposite party No. 3. who is her daughter, and on account of the inflation expenditure of opposite party No. 2 had also gone up and, therefore, the Family Court found that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled for enhancement of maintenance and accordingly enhanced it to Rs. 2,000.