HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 11 / 2017

Narendra Kumar son of Shri Ram Gopal, by caste Patidar, Resident

of Jama Majid Gali, Agara, District Sahanjhanpur (M.P.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Smt Sarita w/o Shri Narendra Kumar, by caste Patidar,

2.

Ms. Sanskriti daughter of Shri Narendra Kumar, by caste

Patidar, minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Sarita,

Resident of House No. A-58, Jawahar Nagar, Jhalawar.

3.

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Godara, P.P.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

Order

10/04/2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

order impugned dated 22^nd October, 2016 whereby learend Family

Judge, Jhalawar has allowed the application filed by the

respondents Sarita and her daughter Ms. Sanskriti and enhanced

the amount of monthly maintenance from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs.

6,000/- and Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- for Sarita and Sanskriti

respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific

reason has been assigned by the Court below to enhance the

amount of maintenance. Simply because three years have passed

after the initial order, the amount has been enhanced which

cannot be justified.

(2 of 2)

[CRLR-11/2017]

On perusal of the order, it comes out that elaborated and

detailed discussions have been made by the learned Family Judge

while dealing with the evidence adduced by both the sides.

Reference has also been made to the admission made by the

petitioner regarding enhanced retail prices of necessary

commodities as also enhanced salary of petitioner. This fact has

also been considered that during last more than three years rates

of day to day expenses of livlihood have been enormously

enhanced.

In view of the reasons given by the learned Family Judge,

Jhalawar, no illegality or impropriety appears in the order

impugned, hence, there is no substance in this revision petition for

which the same may be admitted.

Hence, this revision petition is dismissed accordingly.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

Mohit/41