Jaya Roy, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has filed the instant revision application against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dnanbad has allowed the petition filed by the applicant -opposite parties No. 1 and 2 under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. and thereby, increased the amount of maintenance from Rs. 800/ - per month to Rs. 2100/ - per month which was ordered to be paid from the date of the Order i.e. 30.04.2010.
(2.) THE applicant -opposite party No. 1 had filed an application under Section 127 Code of Criminal Procedure. for enhancement of maintenance amount granted to her by order dated 21.09.2000 passed by the Principal Judge. Family court, Dhanbad whereby the petition filed by her under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. for grant of maintenance was allowed granting maintenance of Rs, 1,000/ - per month in M.P. Case No. 97 of 2001. It has been stated that against the aforesaid order passed under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure., the present Petitioner -husband had preferred a criminal revision application before this Court being Cr. Rev. No. 624 of 2002 in which, after hearing the parties, this Court reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/ - to Rs. 800/ - per month to the wife and the minor children by its order dated 20.03.2003. It appears that thereafter, the Petitioner had filed Cr. Misc. No. 46 of 2005 in which the maintenance amount that been enhanced from Rs. 800/ - to 2100/ - by the impugned judgment. The case of the applicant -opposite party, in brief, is that as her child born from their wedlock have now grown up and is going to school and the price of the commodities have increased, the maintenance amount be enhanced. Furthermore, the Petitioner is in service and his salary has also been increased, therefore, the applicants claimed for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 800/ - to Rs. 3,000/ - per month for the maintenance of herself and her minor child. The opposite party -present Petitioner appeared before the court and filed show cause stating therein that the applicant is his second wife as he married her become his first wife, always remained sick and was not in a position to perform household duties. The conditions for the marriage of the Petitioner with the applicant was that she would perform the household duties and take care of the children bom from his first wife and would live peacefully. The applicant -opposite party did not care for all these things and she refused to live with the Petitioner and she started living separately from the Petitioner. Moreover, the case of the Petitioner is that his daughter from his first wife is marriageable and he has no money even to perform her marriage. Therefore, the amount increased by the court below is very unreasonable and excessive. It has been stated by him that he is earning a very megar amount.
(3.) FROM the records, I find that the applicant -opposite party examined herself as a solitary witness in support of her case whereas the Petitioner -husband examined altogether four witnesses in support of his case, O.P. Ws. 1 and 2 are Md. Siraj Ansari and the first wife of the Petitioner, Md. Sattar respectively, O.P.W. 3 is Kanhaiya Prasad Singh and O.P.W.4 is the Petitioner himself.;