ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present application, the applicant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Nadiad in Criminal Misc. Application No.504 of 2017 (Old No. 689 of 2014.

2. It is the case of the applicant that the the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year 1999 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, they have four children, namely one son, Aaman, aged 14 years, and three daughters, Bhumika, aged 12 years, Janki, aged 9 years, and Megha, aged 7 years. It is the case of the respondent-wife that she was deserted by the husband along with the minor children in the year 2008, and thereafter she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded maintenance of Rs.600/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the minor children, aggregating to Rs.2,600/- per month. It is submitted that the husband is working as a driver with GSRTC and has been regularly paying maintenance as per the order of the Court. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, and the learned Family Court at Nadiad, after appreciating the evidence and material on record, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.6,000/- per month.

Therefore, the present application.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the income of the applicant is only Rs.8,000/- per month and that he is working as a daily wager as well as an ST driver. It was submitted that initially, maintenance of Rs.2,600/- was granted in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., considering the income of the applicant to be Rs.8,000/- per month. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance, and without any evidence, the maintenance amount came to be increased to Rs.6,000/- in the year 2017. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the wife to show that the income of the applicant had increased. Hence, it was requested that the present application be allowed.

5. The learned advocate for the respondent-wife opposed the present application on the ground that there are five persons to be maintained. Initially, proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 and maintenance of only Rs.2,600/- was awarded on 27.02.2009. At the relevant point of time, the applicant was working in a private firm as a computer operator. Subsequently, he was appointed in GSRTC and also entered into a second marriage. This fact is reflected from the details provided by GSRTC under the RTI Act, wherein the name of another lady is mentioned as nominee in the provident fund records. Not only that, his salary is stated to be Rs.72,000/- per month. Hence, it was submitted that the learned Family Court has not committed any error. The marriage subsisted for 18 years and out of the wedlock four children were born. At the relevant time, only Rs.2,600/- was awarded towards maintenance. However, after a long period, the educational and other expenses for maintaining the children have increased. In the enhancement application also, evidence showing salary income of Rs.10,000/- was produced on record. Over and above this, the husband is also stated to have agricultural income, ownership of 10 acres of land, a tractor, a tubewell, and other agricultural income. Hence, it was requested that the present application be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after perusing the record, it appears that the learned Family Judge has duly considered the material placed on record. At the time of passing the impugned order, pay slips produced below Exhibits 19 and 23 reflected that the applicant was earning a salary of Rs.12,025/- p