R.S. Garg, J.@mdashOn an application by the wife u/s 125, Cr.P.C, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hoshangabad, in Misc. Criminal Case
No. 36 of 1991, by his order dated 22.10.1991, awarded a sum o fRs. 200/- as maintenance. The husband filed Criminal Revision No. 120
ofl991, challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the order, while the wife filed Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1991, for enhancement of
the said amount. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, by order passed on 8.1.1993 dismissed the revision filed by the
husband and allowed the revision filed by the wife by eahancing maintenance amount to Rs. 400/-. The husband did not challenge the order passed
in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 1991 and, as such, the findings recorded by the learned Court below that the husband was treating the wife with
cruelty and the wife is unable to maintain herself are to be maintained. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 8.1.1993 passed
in Criminal Revision No. 129/1991, challenging the enhancement.
2. Mr. Z.M. Shah learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the husband is getting a sum of Rs. 1,142.35 per month as salary and the land
which is held to be his own, in fact, is family land. He contended that even if the finding of the learned Court below that the land belongs to him is
taken to be correct, then too, out of the total earning, a sum of Rs. 400/- per month cannot be awarded. -It is submitted by him that ordinarily the
Courts award one-fifth as maintenance from the husband''s earning. He submitted that if everything is held against the applicant, then too, the
maintenance amount deserves to be reduced. ''
3. The learned Revisional Court, after considering the evidence, has held that the salary of the applicant was Rs. 1,142.35 p. per month and he is
possessed of 7 acres of land. The applicant in his written statement admitted that from these 7 acres of land, he is earning about Rs. 3,500/-per
year. On calcultion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the total earning of the applicant is about Rs. 1,400/-. Out of this amount, a sum
of Rs. 400/- is awarded as maintenance to the wife. The material on record shows that the husband is working as a Patwari in the Irrigation
department. He is employed in Government Service and holds 7 acres of land. The evidence of the applicant does not show that he has no
residence to shelter, or has other responsibility to shoulder. In these circumstances, if the learned Court below came to the couclusion that in these
days of rising prices, a sum of Rs. 400/- as maintenance would be sufficiant, no fault can be found with the findings of the Revisional Court. I find
no force in this revision. It is dismissed.
