Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. By filing instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the appellate Court') whereby he partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur (for short the trial Court').
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner submitted an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005'). After hearing the trial Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner for maintenance and house rent per month.
3. The respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 24.9.2007 preferred an appeal in the appellate Court. The appellate Court after hearing partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent vide judgment dated 18.2.2008 and directed the respondent to make payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the appellate Court has preferred instant revision petition.
5. I have heard counsel appearing for both the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me.
6. Mr. Amrit Surolia, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the appellate court only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The trial Court has rightly passed the order. The appellate Court has wrongly assumed income of the respondent as Rs. 85/- per day, although the respondent is involved in running business of plying 3 vehicles and the income from transportation of vehicle is quite large. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court be modified and the order passed by the trial Court be maintained.
7. Mr. Ratan Kaushik, counsel for the respondent submits that the appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment.
8. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and the material made available to me it Is clear that the appellate Court has not properly considered the facts of the case as also the material made available to me and erred in reducing the amount.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur is modified to the extent of granting Rs. 1500/- p.m. in-stead of Rs. 1,000/- as maintenance and house rent. Rest of order passed by the appellate Court is maintained. The respondent shall make payment of this amount from 18.2.2008 i.e. the order passed by appellate Court.