The court upheld the Family Court's decision to enhance maintenance, emphasizing the need for financial support to ensure a dignified standard of living for dependents.

JUDGMENT :

ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant who is the original non-applicant has challenged the order of enhancement of maintenance passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in Criminal M.A. No.63/2016 dated 28/05/2024 is under challenge in this revision application.

3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision application are as under:

A] The non-applicant No.1 and applicant were married as per their rites and customs and out of said wedlock, non-applicant No.2 is begotten. According to the non-applicants, applicant had deserted them, and therefore, she constrained to leave the matrimonial house. She has filed a proceeding under the domestic violence act as well as the FIR under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. She has also filed a petition bearing No.E-149/2001, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance, and said petition was allowed by order dated 20/04/2006 and they were awarded with monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- and Rs.750/- respectively. Thereafter, the non-applicants had also filed Misc. Cri. Appln. No.39/2011 for enhancement of maintenance and by order dated 27/11/2012, their maintenance was enhanced further to the extent of Rs.500/- per month each.

B] The applicant had challenged the order of enhanced maintenance before this Court and this Court pleased to upheld the judgments passed by this Court. According to the non-applicants, since the year 2012, there are material changes in the circumstances, the applicant’s income is considerably increased and their expenses are also increased due to the increase in the prices of essential commodities, further non-applicant No.1 has to incur the expenses towards the school education of the non-applicant No.2. It is further contended that the applicant is earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month from tailoring and other business and he has sufficient means for grant of maintenance, therefore, the non-applicants have prayed for awarding enhanced maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month for the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month for non-applicant No.2.

C] The applicant has resisted the petition by filing his written statement vide Exh.12 and denied the entire contentions. According to him, the he is running tailoring shop and earning Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. Non-applicant No.2 has attained the age of majority, and therefore, he is not entitled for maintenance. It is further stated by him that he is not earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month but he was doing weaving work but because of government policies, said work has been badly affected and presently he has no sufficient means for grant of maintenance and prayed for rejection of the petition.

D] After appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance as far as non-applicant No.2 is concerned by directing the applicant to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of filing the petition i.e. 21/09/2016 till 21/10/2017 and as far as non-applicant No.1 is concerned directed to pay the maintenance @ Rs.8000/- from 21/10/2017 till December, 2021 and thereafter Rs.10,000/- per month till the date of passing of the judgment and thereafter Rs.12,000/- onward.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, present revision application is preferred by the applicant on the ground that the Family Court has not considered that being non-applicant No.2 belongs to the scheduled caste he has free education. It is further contended that non-applicant No.1 is an educated lady and she can earn the amount for her survival. Moreover, the applicant has no sufficient means for grant of