The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance maintenance allowance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on changed circumstances, such as the respondent's physical disability and the petitioner's income.

Jaya Roy, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the instant revision application against the order dated 26th February 2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 35 of 2005 arising out of Misc. Case No. 51 of 1991 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby, the trial court has enhanced the maintenance allowance of the opposite party from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 75067- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.1.2006 u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant petitioner.

2. The case in brief, is that the applicant opposite party earlier filed an application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure against the present Petitioner who is her husband for granting maintenance allowance to her as well as her two sons. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 5.1 of 1991. In the said miscellaneous case, though the Petitioner appeared but not contested the claim. The trial court after considering the case of the applicant-opposite party, allowed the said miscellaneous petition vide order dated 6th January 1997 and a sum of Rs. 500/- per month was awarded to her from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 1.6.1991. As the payment was not made by the Petitioner, therefore, they proceeded for realizing the awarded amount. After the constitution of the Family Court, the case was transferred to this Court and after receiving the same on 1.8.2005, the said case was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 313 of 2005.

3. During the pendency of the said case, the applicant-opposite party filed a petition u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure on 23rd January 2006 praying therein for enhancement of the maintenance allowance. She has stated in her petition, filed u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure that when she had filed a petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, at that time there was a maximum limit of granting maintenance was Rs. 500/- only. Therefore, her maintenance allowance granted by the trial court was limited to the maximum amount. She has further stated that her husband who is the Petitioner in this case, is a contractor and is engaged in various companies, semi government and other private establishments. He now earns more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. The applicant-opposite party is an handicapped lady and she has no source of income. Her father is a retired person as she is handicapped, she has to spend for more than Rs. 2,000/- per month on her treatment. Furthermore, she needs a permanent attendant to look after her.

4. The Petitioner has filed a show-cause stating therein that the applicant-opposite party has filed this petition with a mala-fide intention and only to harrase the opposite party. The contention of the applicant-opposite party is totally false and fabricated. He has further stated that he hardly earns Rs. 8,000/- per month from all his sources and he has to look after his old parents and two sons who are studying and he cannot even afford to pay Rs. 500/- as awarded to the applicant-opposite party. He has further staled that the applicant- opposite party has one institution in the name and style of Vijay Vergia Arts and Handicrafts at Ranchi andjhe has also a business of Gold plated jewellery in the name and style of Saloni Micro Gold Plate Jewellery. Apart from this, she also organizes Dance, Mehendi and Painting Competition and from all these things, she is earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and also she is capable of doing everything. The opposite party has stated further that he has taken services of a private detective agency and the said agency has given report which supports the contention of the opposite party petitioner. The opposite party herself does not want to live with the petitioner. He has further stated that the applicant-opposite party was directed by the 9th Addl. Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Matrimonial Case No. 501 of 1999 on 14th May 2001 to come and live with this Petitioner and restored their conjugal life but the applicant-opposite party has not complied the sa