JUDGMENT : D.C. Gheewala, J. The present petition is directed against the order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No 286 of 1984 which in turn was directed against the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 50 of 1983. The petitioner-wife was married to respondent no. 1 and after six months the marriage went on rocks. The wife filed application under section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting maintenance and Rs. 200/- per month were awarded by way of maintenance. Subsequently by Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 1983, the wife prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount under section 127(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate increased the said amount by Rs. 100/- and ordered that from September, 14, 1982 the maintenance amount should be paid at Rs. 300/- per month. The wife prayed for Rs. 500/- per month. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner-wife carried the matter before the learned City Sessions Judge who dismissed the petition and concerned with the finding given by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It is the said order which is now sought to be challenged by way of this Special Criminal Application. 3. Mr. Bharwad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-wife urged that in the instant case both the Courts below have failed to appreciate a very significant aspect of evidence. Mr. Bharwad brought it to my notice that as per the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the income of respondent no. 1 husband was Rs. 2048.92 per month and the maintenance amount was fixed at Rs. 200/- when the income was only Rs. 1100/- and inspite of the fact that the husband has in the meanwhile earned substantial increments there is no corresponding rise in the amount of maintenance as fixed by the Courts below. Mr. Bharwad, therefore, urged that the wife's claim of Rs. 500/- per month quite a modest one and it should have been awarded in toto. 4. As against his, Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-husband urged that the respondent-has tremendous personal and social liabilities to shoulder. He has to take care of old parents and an in firm brother. However, regarding increase of income, Mr. 500/- per month quite a modest one and it should have been awarded in toto. 4. As against his, Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-husband urged that the respondent-has tremendous personal and social liabilities to shoulder. He has to take care of old parents and an in firm brother. However, regarding increase of income, Mr. Gupta has this to say that the net pay packet per month does not go over Rs. 2048/- but it is substantially less. If the husband has taken some loan for building a house or if he is paying a premium en his life insurance policy, these are the amounts by which he is likely to derive benefit in future. That by itself cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife. A wife who has been found entitled to claim maintenance from the husband is supposed to be permitted to live in the same status which might be commensurate with the status of the husband if the husband's income increase, the amount of maintenance should necessarily be increased. Section 127(l) of the Criminal Procedure Code is for taking care of such situation. The amount of maintenance once fixed under section 125 is not something which can be taken to be a blanket liability for all time to come. It is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or it can be decreased as per the circumstances obtainable. 5. In the instance case while I am unable to accept Mr. Bharwad's request for maintenance to be fixed at Rs. 500/- per month. I do feel that the substantial increase in the salary after the maintenance was fixed initially has been lost sight of by both the Courts and a meagre increase of Rs. 100/- per month does not appear to be taking care of the wife's necessities as per or the the status in which she is supposed to maintain herself. month more should circumstances I feel that an amount of Rs. 50/- per to the wife from the date stipulated by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and hence the maintenance is fixed at Rs. 350/- per month of the said date. The respondent-husband shall also pay Rs. 200/- by way costs to the petitioner-wife for the present petition. month more should circumstances I feel that an amount of Rs. 50/- per to the wife from the date stipulated by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and hence the maintenance is fixed at Rs. 350/- per month of the said date. The respondent-husband shall also pay Rs. 200/- by way costs to the petitioner-wife for the present petition. Two months' time granted for depositing the arrears of maintenance as per the fresh calculation of 1 to accordingly. Application allowed in part.