Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6401 of 2006 Petitioner :- Smt. Luxmi Devi Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Petitioner Counsel :- M.A. Qadeer Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for
the respondent.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the
respondent was earlier drawing a salary of about Rs. 11,000/- and
after deduction he was getting Rs. 8,000/- before his retirement.
The maintenance amount was only enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs.
800/-, which was inadequate and the same should be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that now the
respondent has retired.
I think, these are questions of fact and this Court is not in a
position to appreciate the findings recorded by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jhansi dated 28.8.2006.
However, looking to the price rise, it is provided that if the
revisionist move an application under section 127 Cr.P.C., the
court concerned may pass appropriate orders after hearing the
parties.
With these observations, this revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010
Ishrat