The High Court rejected the criminal revision petition challenging an order enhancing the wife's maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. from Rs. 750 to Rs. 3000 per month, finding the enhancement justified by the applicant's salary slips indicating gross income over Rs. 12,000.
The instant Revision Petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2016
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicants
| For Applicant | : Mr. |
P.R. Patankar, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For Non-applicants | : Mr. |
Praveen Dhurendar, Advocate |
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy
Order On Board
19/08/2016
1. By way of the present Criminal Revision the Applicant has assailed the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the First Additional Principle Judge Family Court, Durg in Misc. Criminal Case No. 181/2015.
2. Vide the said the impugned order the Court below has in a proceeding under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. allowing the application of the Nonapplicant wife has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 3000/- per month.
3. The Counsel for the Applicant assailing the said order submits that the order of the enhancement is exorbitant and is on the higher side. He further submits that amount of Rs. 3000/- is beyond the paying capacity
2
of the Applicant. He would not be able to sustain himself if the said order is honoured.
4. Learned Counsel for the Non-applicants submits that in fact the contention of the Applicant is fully baseless for the reason that a perusal of the pay slip which has been filed along with the reply of the Nonapplicants clearly indicates that the gross salary of the Applicant was somewhere Rs. 12326/- per month of which the net income he used to draw was more than Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, prayed for rejection of the Revision Petition.
5. Having considered the rival submissions put forth on either side and perusal of the pay slip of the Applicant for the month of August, 2010 wherein it is clearly reflected that the gross salary of the Applicant was more than Rs. 12000/- per month, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity on part of the Court below while enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 3000/- per month.
6. In view of the same, the instant Revision Petition being devoid of merits, the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE
kishore
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 3000/- per month was exorbitant and beyond the paying capacity of the applicant.
Whether there was any illegality or infirmity in the order enhancing the maintenance amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narhar Das Manikpuri
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
