H.C.MISHRA - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.5.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2009 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby maintenance granted to the petitioner from her husband-opposite party was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- p.m. from the date of passing of the order by the Court below. It appears from the impugned order itself that the application was filed by the petitioner for seeking enhancement of her maintenance to Rs. 4000/-p.m., from Rs. 1000/- p.m., which she was allowed by order dated 4.12.2008.
(2.) IT appears from the impugned order that the Court below found that the opposite party was working in Jharkhand Tribal Development Society and his salary was Rs. 9329/- p.m. in the year 2009 and on the basis of earning of the opposite party, maintenance granted to the petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 1000/- p.m. to Rs. 2000/-p.m. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the income of the opposite party, the maintenance of the petitioner aught to have been enhanced to Rs. 4000/- p.m. However, the learned counsel has also pointed out from the revision application that presently after 6th Pay Revision, the opposite party is getting the salary of Rs. 5200-20200/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 2800/- p.m. and he has other income from cultivation etc. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for enhancement of maintenance amount of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the maintenance aught to have been allowed to the petitioner from the date of filing the application, which has not been done by the Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for opposite party has opposed the prayer. In view of the statements made in the revision application mentioning the salary of the petitioner after 6th Pay Revision, in my considered view, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to move before the Court below for enhancement of her maintenance amount by filing fresh application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is given the liberty to file fresh application for enhancement of her maintenance, and in case such application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be adjudicated by the Court below in accordance with law. The Court below shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the maintenance allowance from the date of application, and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. For the present, I do not intend to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below at this stage, which shall remain in force until further order is passed by the Court below. With these observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of.;