1. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch dated 4.8.2011 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 172 of 2010, by which, revision application filed by the petitioners herein came to be partly allowed by almost doubling the maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the petitioners against the order dated 4.12.2010 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Bharuch in Criminal Misc. Application No. 28 of 2007, by which, total amount was awarded to the petitioners was Rs.4,000/-.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the salary of respondent No.1 is more than what is recorded by learned Sessions Judge and even a statement which was produced before learned J.M.F.C. in the year 2009 would reveal that gross pay of respondent No.1 in the month of February 2010 was Rs.30,133/- and as on date respondent No.1 is earning around Rs.40,000/- p.m. and, therefore, the courts below erred in awarding maintenance to the petitioners which is not sufficient to maintain the family of three persons. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 is working as Assistant Driver with Indian Railways and having fix and reasonable salary and has no other liability and total amount earned per month is around Rs.40,000 to 45,000/- the petitioners were entitled for Rs.30,000/- p.m. towards maintenance.
3. On perusal of the judgments passed by the courts below, I am of the view that no purpose would be served by issuing notice to respondent No.1 inasmuch as the courts below has taken consistent view on the basis of the record and evidence available before the Courts and upon consideration of pay-scale of respondent No.1 after permissible deduction it is noticed that the takeaway home salary is around Rs.15,000/- and further the respondent No.1 has no permanent residence and mother of the respondent No.1 is dependent upon him. Even upon retirement, mother of respondent No.1 was not entitled to receive the pension since he was appointed on compassionate ground. In the above circumstances, the amount enhanced by the Sessions Court for Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the petitioners out of takeaway home salary of Rs.15,000/- approximately cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable and no interference is called for in this petition.
4. The petition is rejected.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top