Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute findings of fact unless they are perverse. Furthermore, double maintenance is not permissible; any maintenance awarded under other laws must be set off against Section 125 CrPC awards, and enhancement must be sought under Section 127 CrPC.

JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2014 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in Criminal Misc. Application No.148/2012 as well as the judgment and order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, District Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No.44/2014.

[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. P.V. Patadiya for the applicants, learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

[3.0] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it appears that by way of present application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Application No.148/2012 filed by the applicant under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection order as well as for getting the maintenance. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass an order on 29.03.2014 awarding total maintenance of Rs.1600/- per month i.e. Rs.1100 for applicant No.1 – wife and Rs.500/- for applicant No.2 – minor. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the applicants herein assailed the said order before the learned Sessions Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.44/2014 and learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge modi maintenance and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.1500 for applicant No.1 and Rs.1000/- for applicant No.2 – minor and ordered the respondent – husband to pay the same from 05.05.2014. Further aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present revision application assailing the judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below.

[4.0] Perusing the record, it appears that another application being Criminal Misc. Application No.147/2012 was filed by the applicants under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance wherein order of maintenance came to be passed by the learned JMFC and said order was assailed by the applicants before the appellate Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.19/2014 wherein the appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate against which Special Criminal Application No.5034/2014 came to be filed and the coordinate Bench vide order dated 11.08.2023 decided the said petition coming to the conclusion that in total applicants are entitled to get Rs.4100/- in total towards maintenance and admitted income of the husband on record is Rs.5000/- and therefore, the coordinate Bench did not interfere with the orders impugned therein however, liberty was reserved in favor of the applicants to file appropriate proceedings under Section 127 of the CrPC in case of change in circumstances for enhancement of maintenance amount.

[5.0] In aforesaid backdrop, when a specific query is posed to the learned advocate for the applicants as to whether applicants have filed appropriate proceeding under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, he has candidly admitted that no any proceeding till date under Section 127 of the CrPC has been filed by the applicants. Thus, it appears that the applicant No.1 is able to maintain herself and her son and is satisfied with the amount of maintenance.

[5.1] Even otherwise, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by both the Courts below, it appears that facts are appropriately appreciated and finding of fact are not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be s