Ramesh Chand Meena vs Ram Vilas Bai and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner Ramesh Chand Meena, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2012 whereby the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had filed an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court Kota, stating therein that vider order dated 28.03.2006, the learned Court had awarded a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to them. With the lapse of time, on account of price hike in values of essential commodities, and increase in the education of respondents, a prayer was made to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- per month. As no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 18.1.2011, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. Vide order dated 25.5.2012, the learned Judge has accepted the application of the respondents and has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-each i.e. total of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents.

Mr. S.N. Meena, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that initially, by order dated 28.03.2006, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the wife and to the minor children. Subsequently, the wife had moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. Without assigning any reason, the learned Judge has increased the maintenance from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-. Secondly, that the petitioner does not have sufficient means to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the respondents. Therefore, he would equally face hardship if he is forced to pay Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. According to the respondent No. 1 Smt. Ram Vilas Bai, she has to incur Rs. 4,000/- for educating her two sons, Sunil and Anil, and has to incur Rs. 3,000/- for educating her daughter, Kavita.

Considering the fact that the inflation has increased since 2006, considering the fact that respondent No. 1 has to bring up four children, considering the fact that she has to incur at least Rs. 7,000/- for educating Sunil, Anil and Kavita, the learned Judge was certainly justified in enhancing the maintenance amount, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that respondent No. 1 has to look after the welfare of her children, therefore, the enhancement by Rs. 2,000/- is most reasonable.

Poverty is not a defence to an application filed u/s 125/127 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that he would be financially constrained to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- is misplaced. Admittedly, the petitioner had never challenged the order dated 28.3.2006 whereby he was directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent. The increase of Rs. 2,000/- in a gap of six years cannot be said to be unreasonable.

For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the petition and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed.