JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

1. Present criminal revision petition is filed against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the Learned Family Court, Hisar, in a case bearing No. MNT 357-III of 2016, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-herein (wife) under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed. In the present petition, it is contended that the amount of maintenance as enhanced by the Family Court in favour of the petitioner, vide the impugned order, is inadequate and is entitled to be enhanced.

2. Facts germane to the adjudication of the present petition are that initially the petitioner filed a petition against the respondent for grant of maintenance on the ground of her being his legally wedded wife and not possessing sufficient means to maintain herself. The said petition was allowed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar vide order dated 06.03.1996 and an amount of Rs.500/- per month was awarded to the petitioner as maintenance. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount so granted, whereby the mainteance amount of Rs.500/- per month, as originally granted to the petitioner, was enhanced to Rs.900/- per month vide order dated 11.07.2009.

2.1 Thereafter, with the passage of time, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance prevailing in her favour, the petitioner again filed an application on 02.05.2014, under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., for enhancement of quantum of maintenance granted in her favour. The said application was decided by the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 20.01.2017 and the quantum of maintenance was enhanced from Rs.900/- per month to Rs.3000/- per month.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month, so enhanced by the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order, is inadequate and is liable to be enhanced in view of the increased earnings of the respondent including the retiral benefits which he got on his retirement from the Fire Department. It has bee further contended that though the respondent reitred from his service from Fire Department on 30.11.2015, his last drawn salary was Rs.44,106/-. It is contended that the commuted value of pension of the respondent is Rs.3,64,798/-; and besides that, he has received a Gratuity of Rs.6,16,435/-; and leave encashment of Rs.3,97,700/-. It has been further submitted that the respondent also owns some immovable property, hence the learned Family Court must have taken this fact into consideration while adjudicating upon the application for enhancement of the maintenance amount. It has been prayed on behalf of the petitioner that in light of the abovementioned facts, the petitioner is entitled to receive maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month from the respondent.

4. It is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent was duly served in this present revision petition but has chosen not to appear.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case record carefully.

6. A perusal of the record shows that in his reply filed to the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent-herein has contended that the petitioner possess ample source of earning and is not liable to claim maintenance from the respondent. It has been further alleged by the respondent in his above said reply that the respondent, besides paying maintenance to the petitioner also has certain other liabilities including the maintenance amount which he was obliged to pay to his daughter who has since got married. Furthermore, the respondent has old aged parents and his mother was suffering from a neurological problem, which add to his liabilities. The fact that the respondent's brother has expired and the respondent is obligated to look after deceased brother's wife and children also, should also be taken into account while fastening him