- (1.) Case called out in the revised list. Learned Counsel for the parties are present. The present revisions have been preferred by both the parties, i.e., husband and wife against the order of maintenance allowance dated 29.9.2007. So far as the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 3722 of 2007, it is contended that the learned lower court has granted maintenance allowance amounting to Rs. 3,000 per month. It is further contended that according to the pay slip of the year 2009, his salary has been enhanced. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that the learned Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order in the year 2007 and he is not in a position to consider that pay slip which he may get in the year 2009. Accordingly, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the revisionist does not seem to be sustainable and is liable to be rejected.
(2.) So far as the contention for allowing the maintenance allowance from the date of the order is concerned, the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for granting the maintenance allowance and as such, no interference is required by this Court.
(3.) So far as subsequent enhancement of the salary in the year 2009 is concerned, the revisionist is at liberty to move an application under Section 127, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance.;