ORAL ORDER

This RPFC is filed challenging the order dated

10.08.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.53/2019 by the IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru.

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

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place about 13 years back, and they have led a happy married life. They have no issues. The respondent deserted the petitioner without any valid reason. The petitioner is working in a reserve police and has a sufficient source of income. Despite of this, the respondent failed to maintain the petitioner. The respondent did not pay the petitioner for maintenance. The petitioner approached the Family Court, Mysuru and filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010. The said petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.5,500/- p.m. to the petitioner. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. to enhance the maintenance amount. It is contended that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is not sufficient to maintain the petitioner as she is suffering from old age ailments and requires regular medication. Hence, she sought for enhancement.

3. The respondent filed an objection to the petition, contending that the petition is not maintainable. The respondent has denied that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent, and it is contended that the respondent is married to one Smt.Pushpabai and they have two sons out of their wedlock, and it is contended that the petitioner is the wife of Madhav Rao, and the petitioner has two sons through Madhav Rao. After the death of Madhav Rao, the petitioner was residing in a Muslim area within the jurisdiction of N.R.Mohalla police station. During that time, the respondent was working at N.R.Mohalla police station and attending duty in the N.R.Mohalla police station area where the petitioner was residing. It is contended that the petitioner filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010.

4. The respondent did not participate in the said proceedings, and the petition was allowed, which was exparte. The respondent did not participate due to work pressure. It is contended that the respondent is working as Reserve Police as ARSI and getting a salary of Rs.41,603/- p.m. Hence, maintenance claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. To prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to 13. The respondent examined himself as RW.1, and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to 14. The Family Court, after recording the evidence and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and the maintenance awarded by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.79/2010 on the file of Family Court, Mysuru is enhanced from Rs.2,500/- p.m to Rs.5,000/- p.m from the date of the petition. The respondent was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m, towards maintenance from the date of the petition and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the petition. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, has filed this revision petition seeking enhancement.

6. Notice was issued to the respondent, but the respondent remained unrepresented despite the service of notice.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court committed an error in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,500/- p.m to Rs.5,000/- p.m. The said amount awarded by the Family Court is on the lower side. It is contended that the petitioner is drawing a net salary of Rs.62,697/-, and has produced a salary certificate for August 2024. Hence, he prays to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- p.m to Rs.20,000/-p.m.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of t