JUDGMENT :

1. The undisputed facts emerge for the consideration of this Court reads thus:

1.1. The petitioner -wife and respondent no.1 – husband got married on 24.01.1999 and out of the said wedlock, they have two children, viz. Priyanka and Kashyap. The respondent no.1 is residing in Dubai and doing his business. It appears that the petitioner herein was driven-out from her matrimonial home from Mumbai on 24.05.2013 as stated by the petitioner herein, and therefore, the petitioner herein was constrained to reside at her parental home at Veraval, and thereafter, the petitioner herein has lodged FIR being C.R. No. II-3065 of 2013.

1.2. The petitioner herein preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 282 of 2013 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Class, Veraval.

1.3. The respondent no.1 appeared through his advocate, wherein, during the examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the respondent no.1 herein admitted that the respondent no.1 is earning 5500/- Dirhams p.m. (approximately Rs.1,04,256/-). The learned JMFC by an order dated 19.11.2016, awarded Rs.6,000/- towards maintenance per month.

1.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned JMFC, the petitioner herein has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 2017 before the learned District & Sessions Court, Veraval, wherein, the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner herein came to be partly allowed, by an order dated 29.01.2019, wherein, the learned Sessions Court enhanced/ modified the order order passed by the learned JMFC dated 19.11.2016 to the extent of the award of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the petitioner.

1.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Veraval in Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2017, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ-application, seeking the following reliefs, which reads thus:

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased to modify/enhance amount of maintenance as awarded in the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 2017 and thereby be pleased to enhanced the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- p.m. or any other appropriate amount as deemed fit to this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice;

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s), as are deemed fit, in the interest of justice.”

2.1. Mr. Jay Kansara, learned counsel for Mr. D.V. Kansara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is aged 50 years and is constrained to reside at her parental home and has no means of earning of livelihood and has to depend solely on her old aged parents.

2.2. Mr. Kansara, learned counsel submitted that both the courts below have erred in appreciating the fact that the respondent no.1 in the deposition before the learned Magistrate has accepted the fact that the respondent no.1 has an income amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- which is undisputed. Considering the standard of living of the respondent no.1, Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance was required to be granted to the petitioner.

2.3. Mr. Kansara, learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1 is having two residential flats in Mumbai and a godown in Mumbai and also owner of a salon and trading company in Dubai.

2.4. Mr. Kansara, learned counsel placing reliance upon the aforesaid submissions, vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have granted the amount of maintenance on lower side. For the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Kansara, learned counsel submitted that, considering Rs.1,00,000/- as stated by the respondent no.1 on his own volition, the amount of maintenance is required to be enhanced and the application be allowed.

3.1. Mr. Satish Pa