Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice measure to ensure a deserted wife and children receive adequate financial support, reflecting their standard of living during marriage.

JUDGMENT :

[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

3. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the order passed by the Family Court, Yavatmal, enhancing the maintenance amount granted to the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 by order dated 14/02/2023, by which the Family Court has awarded the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- to the non-applicant No. 2.

4. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the revision application are as follows:

The non-applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the present applicant, and out of wedlock, the birth of non- applicant No.2 took place. The non-applicants 1 and 2 have filed the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”). Initially, bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 74/2011 and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month to the non- applicant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to the non-applicant No. 2 were granted.

5. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 5/2020 was filed by the non-applicant No. 1 for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that prices of the essential commodities have increased. The non-applicant No. 2 is taking education, and the amount granted to them is not sufficient for their livelihood, towards their maintenance and education expenses of the non- applicant No. 2. The applicant owns 15 to 20 acres of irrigated agricultural land, and he also has a milk business, and the family income is Rs. 10 lakhs to 12 lakhs per annum from agricultural land and the milk business. Therefore, she has claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 3,000/- for the minor son.

6. The applicant has resisted the claim of the non- applicant by filing his reply and denied all the adverse allegations, and he has also denied that he has sufficient means to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 to 2,000/- respectively to the non-applicant. As per his contention, the initial application No. 74/2011 was decided ex-parte against him; thereafter, he had filed Application No. 74/2011 for setting aside the order.

7. As per his contention, he does labour work and denied that she has agricultural land of 15 to 20 acres. According to him, he resides in a small village and hardly gets Rs. 100 to 150 per day from the labour work. Thus, he has no sufficient means for grant of separate maintenance to the non-applicant, and therefore, he prays for rejection of the application.

8. The Family Court has considered the evidence of the applicant as well as the non-applicant, and their witnesses has come to the conclusion that considering the fact that now prices of the essential commodities are increased, the non-applicant No.1 has to incur the expenses towards educational expenses of the non-applicant No. 2 and enhanced the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to the non-applicant No.2.

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present revision application is filed by the applicant on the ground that the learned Family Court has not considered that there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant has sufficient means to grant separate maintenance to the non-applicants. The further ground raised is that though the non-applicant No.1 has admitted during her cross-examination that she is also doing the labour work and thus maintaining herself as well as the non-applicant No.2. The Family Court has also not considered the admissions given by the non-applicant No. 1 that applicant is residing in a small village and sometimes he gets the work, and then the labour charges he gets are minimum labour charges, and therefore, the order passed by the Family Court is exorbitant and excessive and liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. Heard learned counsel for the applica