JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. This is an application u/s 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred against an order dated 2nd July 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghatal Paschim Medinipur, in connection with Misc case no. 97 of 2012.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioner is the wife of opposite party no. 2. Their marriage was solemnised on 19th day of Falgoon 1404 BS, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of wedlock between the parties one female child was born. The relationship between the parties became strained thus they are living separately. The petitioner being unable to maintain herself filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional magistrate praying for maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter. The said proceeding was disposed of by the Learned Magistrate in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2008 wherein the pay of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/-per month for the petitioner and Rs. 6000/-per month for her minor daughter was awarded. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petitioner preferred a revision being no. CRR 1780 of 2008 before this Hon’ble Court. The said CRR was disposed by this Hon’ble Court directing the opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5000/-per month and 3000/-per month to her minor daughter. The opposite party no. 2 preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the said judgment. However the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the order of the Hon’ble High Court.

3. The opposite party no. 2 deliberately did not pay the regular maintenance as well as the arrear maintenance to the petitioner consequently to met out the daily expenses for herself and her minor daughter, the petitioner filed an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Magistrate for enhancement of the amount to Rs. 15000/- and for herself and Rs. 15000/- for her minor daughter. The opposite party no. 2 contested the proceeding before the Learned Magistrate and the magistrate after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order and directed the opposite party no. 2 to pay the enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6000/-per month for the petitioner and Rs. 5000/-per month for her minor daughter from the date of the order.

4. Hence this instant revision.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the award passed by the Learned Magistrate in response to the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. is not justifiable Learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and come to an erroneous finding. The Learned Magistrate did not consider the daily expenses of the present petitioner and her minor daughter for which there is a miscarriage of justice. The Learned Magistrate also did not consider the evidence on record regarding the income of the present opposite party no. 2 and passed an improper order. He argued that the present opposite party no. 2 is a Life Insurance Corporation Agent and regularly recieving a huge amount of money as a commission. On the other hand present petitioner has no independent income moreover she has liability to maintain herself along with the daughter. At this juncture the meagre amount of maintenance award by the Magistrate need be set aside and enhanced.

6. Learned Advocate for the opposite party raise strong objection and submitted before this court that he is a Life Insurance Corporation Agent and earlier had received commission from the Life Insurance Corporation. Nowadays, after Covid 19 Pandemic his commission has been decreased, he is not a CM Club Member at present and he is only earning Rs. 147458/- (One lakh forty-seven thousand four hundred fifty eight) per year as commission. He further pointed out that the present opposite party no 2 has preferred a revision before the Learned Sessions Judge, wherein the Learned Sessions Judge has passed an order of directing t