Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.—This criminal revision has been filed by Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, wife of Sardar Surendra Pal Singh and Km. Kulvindar Kaur @ Nancy, daughter of Sardar Surendra Pal Singh against the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in case No. 25 of 2002, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and another v. Sardar Surendra Pal Singh), by which learned Court below has directed respondent No. 2 to pay enhanced amount Rs. 2500/- per month to Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to Km. Kulvindar Kaur @ Nancy.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that previously an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C., case No. 378 of 1991 Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and another v. Sardar Surendra Pal Singh, was decided ex-parte on 30.11.1993, by which respondent No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 5,00/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,00/- per month to the minor daughter. Later on an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved for enhancing of the maintenance amount for the minor daughter, which was listed as 378 of 1991, which also was ex-parte allowed on 1.5.1997 and the maintenance for the daughter was enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month. The wife and daughter had again moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., case No. 25 of 2002 for enhancement of the maintenance amount for wife and unmarried daughter. It was prayed that Rs. 5,000/- per month be directed to be paid to the wife and Rs. 5000/- per month be directed to be paid to the unmarried daughter. This application was decided on 24.7.2004, by which the maintenance for the wife was enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- per month and for minor daughter, it was enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month. Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision No. 3579 of 2004 in this Court and this Court has allowed the revision, remanded the matter for fresh hearing and order, vide order dated 30.3.2007 and it was directed that enhancement order be passed after considering the evidence available on record. After the remand, both parties appeared in the Court and produced their evidence. Learned Court below after hearing the parties passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by inadequate enhancement in maintenance amount, present revision has been filed.

3. I have heard Sri Chandra Keshwar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and also learned AGA for the State.

Respondent No. 2 did not appear despite service of the notices.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Court below has failed to consider the status of respondent No. 2, who is getting salary from his department. As per pay details of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was getting gross salary to the tune of Rs. 54080/- in the month of May 2009. He has no other liability so, he can pay adequate amount for maintenance of the wife. It was also argued that since the revisionist No. 2, minor daughter, has attained majority, hence he is pressing this revision only for the wife. It was prayed that the wife is entitled for at least Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance from respondent No. 2, because she has no other income and no other means of livelihood. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that he is aggrieved only by inadequacy of maintenance amount. The pay details of the respondent No. 2 has been filed as Annexure 7. According to which, he was getting Rs. 54080/- per month as gross salary and after deductions, he was getting Rs. 37429/- net per month. A perusal of the pay details reveals that this amount Rs. 37429/- is after deduction of the recovery of maintenance amount as per Court’s direction. It is also revealed that he has taken some advance from his General Provident Fund and the recovery for that is Rs. 2900/- per month.

4. In the case of Bhupindra Singh Walia v. Varinder Kaur, 1993 Cr LJ 1128 (P&H), it has been held that Revisional Court can also enhance the maintenance allowances and Section 127 Cr.P.C. creates n