The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to enhance the maintenance amount based on changing circumstances, and the delay in adjudication should not deprive the respondent of her right to maintenance.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. By this common order, above-mentioned petitions are being disposed of as these have arisen out of order dated 13.10.2021.For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRR(F)-207 of 2022.

2. The petitioner, through the instant petition, is seeking setting aside/modification of order dated 13.10.2021 whereby Principal Judge Family Court, Ludhiana has allowed application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. of the respondent-wife and enhanced amount of maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- from the date of application i.e. 24.2.2014.

3. The petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent on 20.5.1997 and out of this wedlock one son namely Simranjit Singh was born on 21.7.1998. The petitioner on 25.1.2000 preferred a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was withdrawn on 27.7.2000. The respondent preferred petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 17.1.2001 and respondent was awarded maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month vide order dated 5.9.2007. A petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent came to be filed, however, it could not fructify because respondent did not come forward to make her statement. Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2006 dissolved marriage between the parties and appeal bearing No. FAO-M-39 of 2008 is still pending before this court.

4. The respondent preferred application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. The application was filed on 24.2.2014. The Family Court vide impugned order dated 13.10.2021 has allowed application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. of the respondent and enhanced amount of maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The amount of maintenance has been enhanced from the date of application i.e. 24.2.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage between the parties stands dissolved and appeal seeking setting aside of decree of divorce is pending before this Court. The marriage was solemnized in 1997 and order of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- at this belated stage is excessive and disproportionate to income of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that amount of maintenance could not be enhanced with effect from the date of application whereas it should be from the date of order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appeal of the respondent is still pending before this Court and she during this entire period had looked after her son who is suffering from chronic disease. The respondent has incurred a huge amount on the treatment of her son. A sum of more than Rs. 9 lacs is pending as arrears against the petitioner, however, he is neither making payment towards maintenance nor coming forward for settlement one or another way.

7. I have heard arguments of both sides and perused the records.

8. The relevant extracts of order dated 13.10.2021 read as:-

“Now the question arises as to what amount of the maintenance allowance from Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant no.1 already granted vide order dated 05.09.2007, is to be enhanced at this stage because the applicants have filed this application for altering the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month for the applicant no.1 and from Rs.700/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month for the applicant no.2 under section 127 of Cr.P.C referred here-in-above on account of arising of prices of every good after passing the said order dated 05.09.2007 to live in the hard time of now-a-days. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent raised to the effect that the quantum of the maintenance already granted to the applicant no.1 vide said order dated 05.09.2007 cannot be altered for enhancement of the same in favour of the applicant no.1, is not found to be sustainable from any angle as per rival stands of the parties and also of rising prices of every commodity from day to day needs of every one after passing the order dated 05.09.2007 in favour of the applicants and n