Surendra Kumar Saxena vs Renu Saxena @ Pooja Sexena

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

(1) Heard.

(2) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2011, passed by Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 279 of 2009, whereby said court has enhanced the maintenance directed to be paid by the revisionist (husband) to his wife Renu Saxena (respondent no.1), at the rate of ` 2,000/ per month, and daughter Km. Vanshika (respondent no.2, minor) at the rate of ` 1,000/ per month.

(3) Brief facts of the case, are that, the revisionist got married to the respondent no.1 Renu Saxena, in the year 2003, and a daughter Vanshika (respondent no.2) born out of the wedlock. The respondents moved an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the year 2005, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 207 of 2005. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court appears to have directed the present revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 1,200/ per month to his wife, and ` 600/ per month to his minor daughter, vide order dated 27.10.2006. In the year 2009, the respondents moved an application under section 127 of Cr.P.C., for enhancement of the amount of maintenance on the ground that the revised pay of the revisionist has gone up ` 10,000/ per month. After hearing the parties, and recording of the evidence the trial court enhanced the amount of ` 1,200/ to ` 2,000/, and ` 600 per month to ` 1,000/ per month as maintenance payable by the revisionist to his wife and the daughter respectively. Aggrieved by said order dated 02.07.2011, this revision is filed.

(4) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this court to the statement of PW2 Rakesh Kumar, a departmental employee of the department in which the revisionist is working as seasonal Amin. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in the examination in chief the witness has stated that after deductions the revisionist gets ` 9,947/ per month as salary, but in the cross examination the witness has admitted that the annual income of the revisionist can not exceed ` 60,000/ per year, as he is a seasonal employee. It is argued that the trial court has erred in law by treating ` 10,000/ per month as approximate salary of the revisionist for whole of the year. Also, it is submitted that as per the certificate issued by Director, Tarai Development Corporation, respondent no.1 is earning ` 3374/ per month, as a helper.

(5) In reply to above, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the job of the respondent no.1 is not a regular one. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the trial court has rightly enhanced sum of maintenance to ` 2,000/ per month payable to wife, and ` 1,000/ per month payable to daughter, in the changed circumstances.

(6) However, having gone through the cross examination of PW2 Rakesh Kumar and considering the certificate issued by the Director of Tarai Development Corporation, this court is of the view that since the maximum limit of annual income of the revisionist is ` 60,000/ only, the maintenance should not have been enhanced by the trial court exceeding ` 1,500/ per month to the wife and ` 750/ per month to the daughter.

(7) Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 02.07.2011, passed by Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 279 of 2009, is modified to the extent that the enhanced sum shall be paid in terms of said order at the rate of ` 1,000/ per month to the respondent no.1 and ` 750/ per month to respondent no.2.