- (1.) THIS petition is filed challenging the order of the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik in Revision Application No.170 of 1998 passed on 28.1.1999. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of petitioner and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
(2.) ORIGINAL application for maintenance bearing No.101 of 1988 was filed by petitioners in which maintenance allowance was granted at Rs.75/- for petitioner No.1 and Rs.100/- each for the two daughters by order dated 16.11.1989. Thereafter application was filed for enhancement being Misc. Application No.47 of 1992. In this application the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 26.7.1994 enhanced the maintenance allowance at Rs.100/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.150/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter another application was taken out for further enhancement being Misc. Application No.185 of 1996. In this application petitioners led evidence in support of the application stating that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have now grown up in age. They are studying in 8th and 6th standard respectively. Their expenses have increased and the meagre allowance which they were getting was not sufficient. The petitioners also contended that the opponent was having irrigated land and earn lakhs of rupees. He also owns vehicle and is engaged in transport business also. However, she could not adduce any documentary evidence in support thereto. The learned Magistrate found that the petitioners were entitled to enhancement and granted maintenance at Rs.300/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.250/- each to petitioners Nos.2 and 3. He accepted the statement on oath of petitioner No.1. This was challenged by the husband-Respondent No.1 in the Sessions Court by Revision Application No.170 of 1998. The learned Sessions Judge however by his order dated 28.1.1999 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate enhancing the maintenance allowance of petitioners.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has stated in para 5 of his order that respondent No.1 examined herself and stated that the prices of essential commodities are increasing rapidly day by day and have increased considerably from the year 1994. The requirements of daughters have also increased. Further more she frequently suffers from illness. Agricultural income of respondent No.1 has increased. It is pertinent to point out that respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box. He even informed the Court that he does not want to lead any evidence. However, surprisingly the learned Sessions Judge was impressed by the fact that it was not stated by the petitioner that she had filed application for maintenance and thereafter she filed an application for enhancement in 1992. This fact was clear from the order of the learned Magistrate. There was no question of any suppression. The learned Magistrate has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the prices of commodities are increasing day by day. The only evidence on record was of petitioner No.1 and the same was rightly believed by the learned Magistrate.;