JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 04.07.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein respondent no. 2 was directed to pay revised maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month to the petitioner.

Facts of the Case

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:

a) The marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with respondent no.2 as per Hindu rituals on 06.12.1992. Out of the wedlock, a son was born on 20.09.1993. Disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2 herein, and subsequently the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of maintenance. By virtue of order dated 14.10.1998 learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) directed respondent no.2/husband to pay maintenance in sum of Rs.450/- per month to petitioner and Rs.350/- per month to the son.

(b) On 24.09.2007, the petitioner filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned MM. An ex parte order was passed in the absence of respondent no. 2, wherein the learned MM enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 2200/- per month, for both the petitioner as well as the son. The ex parte order was challenged by respondent no.2 under Section 126 of Cr.P.C., however, the application was dismissed. The said order was challenged by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 13.5.2010 wherein the Learned Appellate Court remanded back the case to the learned MM with direction to decide the application on merit and till the said application was decided, interim maintenance was awarded as per order dated

24.09.2007.

(c) Consequently, both the parties were heard afresh on application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and by judgment dated 20.01.2011, the application was allowed. The learned MM granted maintenance of Rs. 2,200/- per month to petitioner/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the son from the date of filing of petition till the date of order. Commencing from the date of the order, enhanced maintenance of Rs.3,000/-

per month to the petitioner/wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to the son was awarded.

(d) Since there was increase in the income of respondent no.2 in February 2018, the petitioner/wife filed another application u/s 127 Cr.P.C., praying for enhancement of maintenance vide the impugned order dated 04.07.2018 respondent no.2 was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the impugned order during her lifetime or till she gets remarried. The impugned order dated 04.07.2018 reads as under:-

“...14. Apart from vague allegations of the respondent, which have been denied by the petitioner No.1, there is no evidence to show that petitioner No.1 is working anywhere or there has been change in circumstances on this aspect since the earlier orders were passed under sections 125 Cr. P.C. and 127 Cr.P.C. Thus the petitioner No.1 would remain eligible for the maintenance. The respondent has not been able to discharge the burden to show that the petitioner No.1 is having any other income. Even assuming for the sake of the argument, that petitioner No.2 is working in a Mall as alleged by the respondent, that fact would have no bearing on the liability of the respondent to maintain petitioner No.1. Petitioners have also not been able to show that the respondent has any income salary from Delhi Jal Board.

15. The present petition was filed in July 2014. The respondent is working as a Pump Driver (E&M) with Delhi Jal Board. Recent salary slip (Ex.RWl/2