The court must consider the financial status of both parties while modifying maintenance orders, adhering to established legal guidelines for justice. Absence of proper financial disclosures from both parties undermines the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revision has been preferred against the Judgement and Order dated 15th March, 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2015 filed by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the wife, the opposite party No. 2 and her son, a maintenance proceeding being M.R. 76 of 2009 was started before the Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga.

3. The petitioner being the opposite party in the said proceeding being Misc. Case No. 76 of 2009 filed his written objection denying all the material allegations and also specifically contending that not the petitioner and his family members but the wife i.e. the opposite party No. 2 herein used to misbehave with the petitioner and his family members since she was not willing to stay jointly at her matrimonial house.

4. On 30th May, 2012 the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga passed a Judgement/Order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- each to the opposite party No. 2 and her son, total Rs. 10,000/- from the date of order.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above Judgement and Order dated 30th May, 2012, the petitioner filed a revisional application before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (newly created) Cooch Behar being Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2012 whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (newly created) Cooch Behar modified the order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to her son.

6. The opposite party No. 2 and 3 in the meantime filed an application before the Learned Additional Chief Magistrate, Mathabhanga under Section 127 of the code of Criminal Procedure being M.R. 17 of 2015 for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

7. On 15th March, 2018, the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga passed the judgement and order in M.R. 17 of 2015 enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 5,000/- per month for the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the wife and Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 3 i.e. the minor son of the petitioner (total Rs. 12,000/- per month) from the date of passing of the order.

8. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 was/is working as School Teacher having monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- per month with huge additional income from private tuition.

9. On 5th April, 2016 the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar by the Judgement and Order in Misc D.V. Case 76 of 2012 directed the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 3,000/- along with the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (modified in appeal to Rs. 4,000+ 5,000= 9,000/-) already ordered in maintenance proceeding being M. R. Case No. 76 of 2009 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar on 30th May, 2012.

10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgement/Order dated 5th April, 2016 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar in Misc. D.V. Case No. 76 of 2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar being Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016 under section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The opposite party No. 2 herein also preferred an appeal before the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar being Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2016 challenging the same Judgement and Order of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga. On 18th July, 2018 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Cooch Behar dismissed the appeal of the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016 and allowed the Criminal Appeal being No. 13 of 2016 with a direction to provi