ORDER :

1. Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakant, learned counsel for respondent have appeared in person.

2. The revision petition is listed for admission after notice to respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

4. The order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Family Court, Vijayapur, in Criminal Misc. No. 548/2018 is called in question in this revision petition whereby, learned Judge has directed respondent to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of petition during her life time or till she gets remarried whichever is earlier. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition.

5. Learned counsel Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, submits that the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmities and the same is liable to be set aside.

Next, he submitted that Ex.R1 is the house property extract, it stands in the name of petitioner and she is having two houses. She is capable to maintain herself.

A further submission was made that the land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas stands in the name of mother of respondent. He has two sisters two sisters and they have filed suit a for partition of the property, which is pending for consideration.

It has been contended that petitioner had filed petition seeking maintenance and the Family Court had rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench Kalaburgi in RPFC No. 104/2005 and the same was allowed and directed respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Further respondent is eking his livelihood with great difficulty. It is submitted that respondent doing a coolie work and he has no capacity to pay maintenance as ordered by the Family Court.

Counsel submitted that respondent is married to one Bouramma and she is his legally wedded wife. He has disputed the relationship with petitioner. But the Family Court has failed to consider these facts and has erroneously directed respondent to pay maintenance.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he submitted that the revision petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakant, learned counsel has justified the order passed by the Family Court.

Next, he submitted that respondent has not discharged his marital obligations. He has willfully neglected and refused to maintain his wife therefore, petitioner was constrained to seek the aid of the Court by filing a petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

A further submission was made petitioner had filed a petition seeking maintenance in Crl. Misc. No. 194/2003 and Court had rejected the claim petition. Against which she had preferred a revision petition before this Court in RPFC No. 194/2005. And the High Court passed the order of monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/-. But due to change in the circumstances, she was constrained to seek enhancement of the maintenance amount and accordingly she filed a petition under section 127 of Cr. P.C.

It has been submitted that learned Judge considered the material on record and justified in directing respondent to pay monthly enhanced maintenance of Rs. 4,000/-.

Accordingly, he submitted that the order passed by the Family Court does not require any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of revision petition.

7. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the parties.

8. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether learned Judge justified in enhancing maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-?

It is not in dispute that petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 194/2003 and which was rejected by the Family Court. As against rejection order, she had filed revision petition before this Court in RPF