IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH th ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1725 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

SMT. RUKMABAI S/O VIKRAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE CHAPIHED, TEHSIL KHILCHIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI MANURAJ SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .

AND VIKRAMSINGH @ VIKRAM JAISWAL S/O RAMPRASAD KALAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS WARD NO. 12 HAATPIPLIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI VISHAL PATIDAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-1].

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under Section

19(4) of the Family Courts Act of Cr.P.C r/w Section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.04.2021, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh (Bioara) M.P., in MJCR No.47/2017, whereby the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the application filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.

2. The fact of the case are that on 28.11.1994, the learned trial Court allowed the application of the petitioner directing the respondent to pay Signature Not Verified Rs.400/- per month. Thereafter, an application for enhancement has been filed and vide order dated 16.10.2003, the same was allowed and now, the respondent is paying only Rs.1500/- per month. But the latest application filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the impugned order. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the Trial Court should not dismiss the petition of applicant. Looking to the facts of the case, the amount fixed for maintenance is also on the lower side in view of the modern aspect of life and expenditure in education. However, counsel for the petitioner prays for Rs.5000/- per month, on the other hand, counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer stating that Rs.5000/- per month would be on little higher side and agreed to reduce the same from Rs.5000/- to Rs.4000/- per month.

4. As agreed, the maintenance amount of petitioner to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month would be appropriate and sufficient from the date filing of application.

5. In view of aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned order with a direction that the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court is enhanced from Rs.1500/- to Rs.4,000/- and the respondent shall pay Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of application.

6. Respondent is also directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance amount within two months from the date of order passed from today.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned for information.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

Signature Not Verified (PREM NARAYAN SINGH)

JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified