Smt. Praveena & Anr. v. Suraj Singh S.B. Criminal Revision Petition NO. 1325/2011 u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. against & Anr.

Smt. Praveena & anr. vs. Suraj Singh & anr. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition NO. 1325/2011 u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur by which the court below has partly allowed the petition filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Date of Order :

18.12.2012. PRESENT HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA. Mr. G.S. Rathore for the petitioner. None present for the respodnents. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance against the order dated 12.10.2012 whereby the maintenance has been awarded in favour of the present petitioner. The contention of the present petitioner is that the respondent-husband is in Government job and he is earning 2 Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary and Rs.10,000/- per month from other source. In spite of huge salary, a meagre amount has been awarded and hence it should be enhanced appropriately. None present on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The contention of the present petitioner before the court below was that the respondent is earning Rs.35,000/- to 38,000/- per month but to support this, no documentary evidence has been produced. The contention of the present petitioner is that it was the duty of the respondent to prove the income. There is no doubt about this fact but, in the present cases, the matter has been heard ex parte against the respondents, hence the whole burden to prove his contentions and facts was on the petitioner herself and, admittedly, no documentary evidence has been produced to show the income of the respondent, whereas in reply to the petition, the respondent has submitted that he is earning only Rs.3735/- per month but after considering the totality of the facts, the 3 court below has considered the income of the respondent as Rs.20,000/- and half of the income has been rightly awarded as maintenance to the present petitioner. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. mlt/56 ( NISHA GUPTA ),J.