Maintenance must reflect the recipient's needs and the payer's capacity, especially considering inflation and living costs.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.149/2015 by the learned Magistrate, which was confirmed vide impugned order 07.11.2023 passed in Crl.R.P.No.10007/2023 by the learned Sessions Court.

2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent, who is a divorced wife of the petitioner, filed Crl.Misc.No.149/2015 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.70,000/- per month. The said petition having been contested by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 by partly allowing the petition and enhancing the maintenance payable by the petitioner from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.20,000/- per month after recording oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the sides. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under:

"The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek an order of enhancement of the monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- granted in criminal miscellaneous petition No.34/2010 to Rs.70,000/- per month.

2. The gist of the petitioner's case is as follows:

The petitioner is a destitute lady who married respondent, but their marriage was later dissolved by a court decree, and no children were born to them out of wedlock. The respondent worked as a lecturer at an aided private college before retiring in 2019. He has a son from his first wife, and she died in an accident in 2004. The petitioner is suffering from age-related ailments; she can't do any work to earn income, and she depends on the pension amount of the respondent. The earlier maintenance granted by the court of Rs. 7,500/- is not sufficient to lead her life because the prices of essential items have gone high and she has to pay the house rent of Rs. 3,500/- per month. She also needs money for her monthly medical treatment and the purchase of medicines. Though she has agricultural land in her name, she cannot cultivate it personally because her physical condition does not permit her to do hard labor. Therefore, she filed this petition to seek the enhancement of the earlier maintenance amount of Rs.7,500/- to 70,000/-.

3. The gist of the respondent's objection is as Follows:

The respondent has objected to passing an order for the enhancement of maintenance that was granted by the court in the earlier petition because the petitioner had challenged the earlier maintenance order before the Hon'ble Fast Track Court, but the same was rejected and confirmed the order of the trial court. further contends that the petitioner has a sufficient source of income from agriculture and her family is financially sound; apart from that, she obtained an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the cheque bounce case; apart from that, the petitioner has been living a lavish lifestyle with the earlier maintenance amount, and she falsely stated before the court that she is suffering from age- related ailments when, in fact, she is a hale and healthy woman, she can earn an income, and she has produced fake medical bills to get enhanced maintenance. The respondent is a senior citizen; he has spent a significant amount of money on his son's wedding, he has to care for his elderly mother, and he retired from a private college. Fifty percent of his salary has gone to Government deductions and other expenses, and the pension amount he received from the college is insufficient to lead a happy life and to pay his medical expenses. Further, the petitioner has falsely stated in her petition that, after passing maintenance in the earlier case, immediately the prices of essential items increased by 40 to 50 percent. The petitioner has stated false facts before the court; therefore, with the above-ment