Mangesh S. Patil JUDGMENT
Mangesh S. Patil, J.
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocate for the respondent waives service. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
2. This is a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad in Criminal M.A. No. 50 of 2014 dated 17.01.2017, allowing the application but refusing to enhance the maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the extent as claimed by the petitioners against the respondent and also being aggrieved by the direction making such increase from the date of the order.
3. The marriage between the applicant no. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.06.1998. The applicant no. 2 was born on 10.04.1999 and the applicant no. 3 was born on 08.03.2002 out of the wedlock. Both the children are with the applicant no. 1. After initial bickering the couple got separated and proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were lodged by her. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1100/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and to Rs. 800/- per month each to the applicant nos. 2 and 3 with effect from 11.07.2008, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Alleging that there were change in material circumstances qua the applicants as well as the husband, the present proceeding was initiated once again under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the impugned order the learned Judge allowed the application but increased the maintenance to Rs. 2000/- per month to each of the applicants but awarded it from the date of the order i.e. 17.01.2017. Hence this revision praying to enhance the maintenance up to Rs. 15,000/- per month for each of the applicants and for providing such increment from the date of the application i.e. 28.08.2014 instead from the date of the impugned order.
4. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that ignoring the relevant facts the learned Judge has not increased the maintenance proportionate to the increase in the need of the applicants as well as increase in the income of the respondent. He would submit that in spite of rightly arriving at a conclusion that during the intervening period the suspension of the respondent from his government service was revoked and he was taken on a regular pay roll and his gross salary for the month of April-2016 was Rs. 54,299/-, the learned Judge has erred in deducting non statutory outages which is not permissible. If the respondent has taken advance of Rs. 9,583/- from the Provident Fund, that being not a statutory deduction, the Judge should not have given any allowance in that respect. Similarly the learned Judge also erred in similarly giving him allowance in respect of his contribution of Rs. 8,000/- towards the Government Provident Fund. Giving such inadmissible allowances to the tune of Rs. 17,589/-, the learned Judge has calculated the net salary of the respondent to be Rs. 27,966/- whereas it should have been 45,549/-.
5. The learned advocate would further point out that since the applicants have been claiming increase since the date of the application i.e. 28.08.2011, even in June 2014 his net salary was Rs. 27,689/-, but since the learned Judge has taken into account inadmissible deduction towards his contribution towards G.P.F. of Rs. 6,250/-, the net salary including this........