JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2011; whereby the learned family court after considering the arguments and documents produced before him; ordered that the opposite party herein is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the applicant/petitioner herein from the date of the order.

It was further ordered that the monthly maintenance allowances of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid on before 10th of each month of English Calendar.

3. The brief fact of the case is that original maintenance case No. 01 of 2011 was decided ex-parte vide judgment dated 02.03.2012 granting maintenance in favour of the petitioner herein at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance case i.e. 06.01.2011 with lump sum expenses of proceeding of Rs. 10,000/-.

Later, a miscellaneous case was filed by the opposite party-husband and the same was allowed and the ex-parte order passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2011 was recalled and thereafter, the learned family court enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 5000/- but it was ordered to be paid from the date of the order.

4. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submits that the learned family court has committed a gross error in passing the impugned judgment on two counts; firstly, the monthly maintenance amount has been enhanced only to Rs. 5000/- which should be at least Rs. 15,000/- per month and secondly the direction is to pay the amount of monthly maintenance from the date of the order which is against the settled principle of law. Learned family court has further erred in appreciating the fact that the property which is owned by the opposite party-husband gives heavy rental income which is almost Rs. 50,00,000/- per month and the amount which has been awarded is a meager amount of Rs. 5000/-. Learned family court should have appreciated the fact that in the present scenario of price escalation Rs. 5000/- is a very meager amount and should be enhanced to at least Rs. 15,000/-. He lastly submits that the enhanced amount which will be ordered by this Court shall also contain a direction about payment from the date of filing which is of the year 2011.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-husband submits that O.P. is a retired defence personal getting pension from the Department which is only Rs. 26,741 plus D.A. and he is maintaining his both sons. As a matter of fact both the sons were residing with the opposite party-husband and for their education and for their proper development the opposite party-husband is facing acute economical scarcity. Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party-husband has also to maintain his ailing parents, as such there is no requirement to enhance the amount from Rs. 5000/- which has been rightly awarded by the learned Family Court. He lastly submits that the learned trial court has not committed any error in awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- from the date of the order; as such no interference is required.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going to the impugned judgment and records of the case, it appears that the O.P. is a retired defense personal getting pension from the department and in addition to own re-employment he is getting salary from the Indian Railway. It is also an admitted fact that for the last more than 13 years the petitioner wife is residing separately on the ground of desertion and cruelty by the opposite party-husband. It also appears from the evidence of both side that from the year 2010 the petitioner is residing separately and once ex-parte maintenance order was passed in her favour and thereafter, as per the order made in anticipatory bail order Rs. 2,500/- is being paid to her by the opposite party-husband. Learned trial court after appreci