J.C. Gupta, J.@mdashHeard Sri Anurag Khanna learned Counsel for the applicant in revision.
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 2562001 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar allowing application moved under Section 127 Cr PC in part. By the impugned order the Judge Family Court has enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 350 per month to Rs. 500 per month.
3. Undisputedly in an application made under Section 125 Cr PC the trial Court had awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 350 per month to opposite party No. 2 wife if applicant and Rs. 250 per month for her minor son Manish alias Shailendra Singh Rathore. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance allowance, opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 preferred Criminal Revision No. 1178/1996 in this Court and by the order dated 722000 the revision was dismissed. It further appears that during the pendency of the said revision opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance allowance on the ground that the salary of applicant has since then increased. The learned Family Judge on consideration of material placed on record has come to the conclusion that the circumstances has changed and as the salary of applicant in revision has increased, the applicant is entitled to get maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.
4. Applicant''s Counsel submitted before the Court that the revision filed by opposite party No. 2 was dismissed by this Court on 722000 and this Court specifically observed that she has been granted reasonable maintenance allowance as he is a Postgraduate and could earn for herself. A perusal of the order passed in revision will indicate that this Court considered the claim of applicant''s wife on the basis that the total income of husband after deduction was Rs. 2327, in April, 1996. Undisputedly in the year 1999 applicant''s salary has increased and thus proportionately the maintenance allowance has been enhanced by the Family Court which in the opinion of this court is neither excessive nor unjust.
5. No interference is thus required. Revision is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.
