JUDGMENT

1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the applicant seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed below Exhibit 28 by the Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2128 of 2017, and for enhancement of monthly maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.15,000/- for applicant No.2 from the date of filing of the application.

2. The case of the applicant is that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of opponent No.2 and applicant No.2 is their son born out of the wedlock; however, due to alleged harassment, applicant No.1 was compelled to reside separately and initially initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., followed by proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. Earlier, this Court in Revision Application No.743 of 2013 had enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Thereafter, the applicants, being partly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.02.2019 passed below Exh.28 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2128 of 2017 by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad, whereby the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be partly allowed and the maintenance was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month for applicant No.2, have preferred the present revision application seeking further enhancement.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the learned Family Judge has erred in properly appreciating the evidence on record and has adopted a myopic view while awarding maintenance of only Rs.6,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to applicant No.2, totaling Rs.10,000/- per month, as against Rs.35,000/- claimed in the application. It is submitted that despite recording a finding that the opponent is earning a salary of Rs.70,000/- per month and has no other liability to maintain anyone, the learned Family Judge has awarded a meagre amount of maintenance. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 is entitled to maintenance of at least Rs.20,000/- per month and applicant No.2 is entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned Family Judge ought to have considered that opponent No.2 has no liability except to maintain the present applicants. It is also submitted that opponent No.2 is receiving various service benefits and is financially capable of maintaining the applicants, particularly considering the standard of living maintained during the period from 2008 to 2016 and the rise in prices of essential commodities. The learned Family Judge ought to have taken into account the price index/escalation during the relevant period. It is further submitted that the earlier proceedings initiated by opponent No.2, namely the petition under Section 9 and thereafter the petition under Section 13 for divorce, were merely pressure tactics to harass the applicant, and that the applicant has incurred substantial expenses in defending the said proceedings. Hence, it is prayed that the present revision application be allowed.

4. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has opposed the application and submitted that applicant No.2 is no longer entitled to maintenance as he has attained majority. Further, it is submitted that the applicant has failed to comply with the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings and she is not ready and willing to join the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the income of respondent No.2 has been incorrectly stated by the applicants, as his gross salary is Rs.64,000/- per month and not Rs.70,000/- per month as alleged. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Family Judge has not committed any error in awarding the maintenance. In view of the above, learned advocate for respondent No.2 prays that the present application be dismissed.

5. Having hea