JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2013, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 264 of 2011, Smt. Lata Bisht and another vs. Mohan Singh Bisht, by the court of learned Judge Family Court Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order an application filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") filed by the revisionist has been allowed and the court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the revisionists and out of which Rs. 5,000/- to the revisionist no.1 Smt. Lata Bisht and Rs. 2,000/- to revisionist no.2 Master Sharansh Bisht.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists would raise only one point with regard to the child Sharansh Bisht, who is revisionist no.2. Learned counsel would submit that the amount of maintenance as awarded to the revisionist Sharansh Bisht is on the lower side and it may be enhanced to some higher side.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that respondent works in Delhi and get Rs. 17,000/- net salary. Out of which, Rs. 7,000/- is to be given to the revisionists. He also maintains his mother. Therefore, the amount of maintenance as awarded cannot be said to be inadequate either to revisionist no.1 or to revisionist no.2.

5. Not quite often it happens that in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, party may file documents regarding their income. This is one case, in which, the respondent's salary slip was filed in the case and according to it, the gross salary of the respondent is stated to be Rs. 20,000/- and his net salary is Rs. 17496/-.It is recorded at the bottom of the page four and top of the page five of the impugned judgment.

6. Admittedly, the respondent lives in Delhi. Though, he is living separately from his brothers. The mother of the respondent was alive and was a member of their family. Revisionists are living in Haldwani. The living standard in Delhi and Haldwani is definitely quite distinct. The cost of living is also different at both the places. Out of Rs. 17,000/-, the learned court below awarded Rs. 7,000/- totally to the revisionists.

7. After having considered all the relevant facts this court finds no reason to make any interference and according to this court, in fact, the amount of maintenance, which was awarded on the date of decision was adequate, keeping in view the financial resources of the respondent as well as the place of living and social responsibilities of both the parties. Accordingly the revision deserves to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists would also submit that since 2013, now the cost of living has come up and the salary of the respondent must have enhanced since then, therefore, revisionists seeks liberty to move appropriate petition before a forum for enhancement of the maintenance awarded to the revisionists. Revisionists are always free to move the application for enhancement of the maintenance under changed circumstances as permissible under law.