month, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Minakshi Gaur. vs. Chitranjan Gaur & Anr. reported in 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 226 , argued that in the said case, the wife was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and the husband was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and even in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the husband to make a payment of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife as the income of Rs.9,000/- per month was considered to be insufficient to maintain the wife. Learned counsel thus submits that here in the present matter, the finding of the learned trial court is only to the extent that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,600/- per month which cannot be said to be sufficient at all for maintaining the petitioner. He thus submits that the petitioner is also having to maintain the child who has been directed to be paid maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month which is also insufficient, therefore, the same also deserves to be enhanced. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 10.1.2011 delivered in Case No.558/2002 wherein on the basis of the FIR lodged by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 and his parents have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Thus, learned counsel argues that now there is a
