The Court has the power to review or alter a maintenance order obtained by suppression of facts, and the burden of proof lies with the party seeking alteration or enhancement of maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner/husband has impugned the common orders under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Criminal Applications Nos. 47/2021 and 01/2021 dated 14.01.2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Family Court, Aurangabad, had granted the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent no.2 by its order passed in case no.E-285/2012 dated 03.03.2017. The petitioner revealed that respondent no.1 had made a false statement before the Court that she did not work and had no source of income at the time of the petition. On the contrary, she was working and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- to 15,000/-. He also alleged that respondent no.1 was working by changing her name to Shalini. She has obtained the maintenance orders suppressing the facts and playing fraud with the Court; hence, the order dated 03.03.2017 may kindly be cancelled.

3. The respondents denied the allegations of playing fraud and having the income to respondent no.1. The respondents have filed an application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the enhancement of maintenance. They have a case that the earlier maintenance was granted three years and ten months before. Due to inflation, the prices of daily needs have risen. The education expenses of respondent no.2 have also been increased. Her expenses have also been increased. The petitioner/husband is an Engineer. He runs two photo studios and has income from rent. He has agricultural land also. He has an income of Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month from studios, Rs.16,000/- per month from rent and Rs. One lac p.a from agriculture. He can pay them monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000/- per month.

4. The petitioner/husband denied the income as pleaded. He came with a case that he earns his livelihood by doing wage labour. He has to maintain his old parents, and his financial condition is poor. Hence, their application may be dismissed.

5. The learned Judge of the Family Court has rejected the application of the petitioner/husband, holding that he has not proved any of the circumstances provided in Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the maintenance for the reason of suppressing the income by the wife while claiming the maintenance in the earlier proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he did not produce cogent evidence that a lady Vithabai and Shalini is the same person. It has also been observed that the Court is not sitting in appeal against the maintenance orders. The learned Judge has also observed that though the wife is earning, taking her income into account, maintenance may be granted to her. Accordingly, he allowed the application of the respondents and enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 3,500/- per month to Rs 6,500/- per month.

6. The petitioner/husband argued in person and submitted the notes of written arguments. He has aggressively argued that the learned Judge ignored the material evidence that the respondent was working with the company and had received a provident fund. She was working under a fake name. The learned Judge has also not discussed the various documents placed on record. The Court has not taken action under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the wife. He also relied on the case laws. He prayed to allow the revision application.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the Applicant did not establish the allegations of using a fake name. He was very irregular in paying the maintenance. Still, a huge amount is due to the Applicant. He has not to maintain anybody, but he has come up with a false case that he has to maintain his parents. He has a handsome income from business, rent and field. The evidence laid before the learned Judge has been correctly appreciated. The expenses of the son have b