ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed, challenging the order dated 08.06.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.117/2017 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

The petitioner and respondents are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 15.06.1997 in Bengaluru, according to the customs prevailing in their community. It is contended that the respondent stayed with the petitioner at her matrimonial home for nearly one and a half years. As she was conceived and went to her parent's house for delivery. She gave birth to a son on 14.05.1999. After that, due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner did not allow the respondent and the child to the matrimonial house for several years. The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.405/2006 seeking maintenance. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 27.09.2016. The respondent, dissatisfied with the maintenance awarded in Crl.Misc.No.405/2006, filed the petition for enhancement, alleging that the maintenance amount awarded in Crl.Misc.No.405/2006 is insufficient to lead a normal life.

3. The Family Court issued notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner appeared through the counsel but did not file a written statement. To prove the contents of the petition, the respondent examined herself as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked 4 documents. The Family Court, after recording the evidence and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and maintenance granted to the respondent was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8000/- p.m. from the date of petition till March 2018 and further the respondent is entitled to maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m, from April 2018 until further order and the petitioner shall pay litigation expenses. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.117/2017 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, filed this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has not provided sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to file a statement of objections. He also submits that the home take salary of the petitioner is Rs.9,014/- and the family Court enhanced the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- which is exorbitant. He submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, prays to allow the revision petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the family Court, after considering the material on record, has rightly enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- p.m, to Rs.8,000/- p.m, and prays to dismiss the revision petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not disputed that the petitioner and respondent are the husband and wife. The matrimonial relationship of the petitioner and respondent is not cordial. The respondent filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.405/2006. The petition was allowed, and an interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted. The respondent, dissatisfied with the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, filed the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C praying for enhancement of maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.117/2017. The family Court issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared but did not file objections to the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court recorded the respondent's evidence and one witness and marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to 4. The Family Court, on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition.

9. The respondent has produced the records Ex.P2. As per Ex.P2, he has drawn arrears