B. L. YADAV. J. ( 1 ) THIS revision under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code) is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th October, 1983, passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad allowing the revision filed by Smt. Urmila Devi opposite party No. 1 enhancing the rate of maintenance from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- per month and rejecting the revision filed by the present applicant against the order dated 4. 2. 1983 allowing the application of Smt. Urmila Devi, opposite party 1 under section 125 of the Code and awarding a sum of Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance payable by the present applicant, the husband to opposite party No. 1 the wife. ( 2 ) THE bereft of details the facts are these. An application under section 125 of the Code was filed by opposite party No. 1, the wife on the ground that she was married to the applicant on 10. 3. 1976 and a son Shashi Gopal Upadhyaya was born on 29. 1. 1977. But the applicant refused to maintain her and has turned her out. Hence she filed an application for maintenance claiming at least Rs. 500/- per month. ( 3 ) THE applicant husband alleged that he did not turn her out rather she went to live with her parents out of her own accord. It was further alleged that a suit for divorce was filed by him, which has been decreed. It was further stated that on 26. 2. 1979 the opposite party No. 1, the wife, along with 5 others reached his residence in Kashipur, attacked him, beat him and forcibly took possession of his residence and that she continued to behave like; a free lancer and did not want to live with him, and that her application was liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate, however, rejected the plea raised by the applicant and held that opposite party No. 1 was married to the applicant, who refused to maintain her. Consequently, under the circumstances of the case, he awarded a sum of Rs. 250/- as maintenance to her since 1-5-80, the date of application, and also directed the past arrears to be paid. Both the parties preferred revision and by the impugned order dated 20-10-83 the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. Consequently, under the circumstances of the case, he awarded a sum of Rs. 250/- as maintenance to her since 1-5-80, the date of application, and also directed the past arrears to be paid. Both the parties preferred revision and by the impugned order dated 20-10-83 the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month and the revision filed by the applicant, the husband, was rejected. Against these orders the present revision has been filed. ( 5 ) SHRI Keshav Sahai learned counsel for the applicant urged that no ground for enhancement of maintenance was made out and as the opposite party 1. was M. A. B. Ed. , she cannot be said to be unable to maintain herself. Hence the order for enhancement of the maintenance amount was incorrect. At the same time the opposite party No. 1 was able to maintain herself, hence the application for maintenance must have been dismissed. Reliance was placed on Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Agarwal, and Jagjit Kaur and others v. Jaswant Singh and others2. ( 6 ) SRI A. B. L. Gaur, on the other hand urged that in these hard days of spiraling prices and keeping in view the status of the applicant, particularly the fact that he was getting a salary of Rs. 1438. 20 per month, the sum Of Rs, 500/- awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision was not excessive and that was the maximum amount fixed by the legislature. It was further urged that other findings including the finding about the marriage and whether the opposite party No. 2 did not want to Jive with her husband, has been correctly recorded against him and it has been found that the marriage was valid, and that even though the opposite party I was M. A. , B. Ed. but she was unable to maintain herself and the applicant has deserted her and refused to maintain. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties only two principal questions arise for consideration. The first is as to whether the enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs, 500/-per month was justified and whether it can be said that the opposite party No. 1 was unable to maintain herself and that she was M. A. B. Ed, and she could maintain herself. The first is as to whether the enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs, 500/-per month was justified and whether it can be said that the opposite party No. 1 was unable to maintain herself and that she was M. A. B. Ed, and she could maintain herself. ( 8 ) AS regards the first point under section 125 (1) (d) of the Code the maximum amount for maintenance could be fixed Rs. 500/ -. No doubt while awarding amount of maintenance no luxury should be allowed and only the bare necessities of life should be considered, particularly keeping in view the income and status of the husband. In summary procedure for maintenance the maximum amount has been fixed at Rs. 500/ -. No doubt the amount has to be fixed keeping in view the necessities of the wife. Just maintenance of the wife of bare necessities would not be sufficient rather it has to be commensurate with the means and status of the husband. At the same time the maintenance of a child, its developing mind and consciousness must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the husband, the applicant is a lecturer in a Post Graduate College and was getting a sum of Rs. 1438. 20 per month as his salary. But the wife, opposite party I, even though she is M. A. B. Ed but she was unemployed. In these days it is not easy to get an employment even though a lady might be having sufficient educational qualifications. Unless she was employed, just by having degrees, it could not be said that she can maintain herself. I am accordingly of the view that even though the opposite party no. 1 was having M. A. , B. Ed. degree, but as she was unemployed, she was unable to maintain herself. ( 9 ) AS regards the amount of maintenance, as stated above, as the applicant was getting a salary of Rs. 1438. 20 per month and he was a lecturer in Post Graduate College, the enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month could not be said to be arbitrary or excessive. Further the provisions of section 125 of the Code have been designedly enacted with a view to give urgent relief to every deserted wife or helpless child and parents. 250/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month could not be said to be arbitrary or excessive. Further the provisions of section 125 of the Code have been designedly enacted with a view to give urgent relief to every deserted wife or helpless child and parents. Even though the right of maintenance is a civil right, but in view of the urgency involved in providing maintenance with a view to avoid vagrancy, this provision has been engrafted in the Code. In other words, a civil remedy has been provided through criminal court. The Section has been enacted to serve a social purpose so as to enable a deserted wife and helpless child whether legitimate or illegitimate to get relief within a short span of time. A maximum limit of Rs. 500/-has been fixed, as maintenance amount just to enable a deserted wife or helpless child to keep their body and. soul together. ( 10 ) THE provisions of Sections 125, 126 127 and 128 of the Code occur under chapter IX dealing with order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. This chapter deals with social purpose and it is a beneficent and social legislation. It has to be accordingly construed liberally and in favour of the neglected wife and children. The duty of the court while enforcing the provisions of Chapter IX are much heavier. The courts need not make just a negative approach, rather it must be positive and affirmative action oriented. As the object of Chapter IX is to serve the social purpose, it must be interpreted in that light so as to achieve social justice equitable considerations. Under the circumstances of the case as the applicant was a lecturer in a Post Graduate College and was getting a handsome salary, it cannot be said that the enhancement of amount of maintenance from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month was in any way excessive. Under the circumstances of the case as the applicant was a lecturer in a Post Graduate College and was getting a handsome salary, it cannot be said that the enhancement of amount of maintenance from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month was in any way excessive. ( 11 ) NOW reverting to the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, Jagjit Kaur and others v. Jaswant Singh and others, (supra) was a case under the and Code and in Para 14 it was observed that if after considering the entire evidence having regard to the salary of the husband, the maintenance amount has been awarded, that finding becomes a finding of fact and if on these findings maintenance amount has been awarded by the Court below, the High Court would not be justified in setting aside that finding. This case obviously goes against the applicant, in as much as if some amount of maintenance has been fixed after considering the evidence on record, that finding cannot be set aside by the High Court in revision under the old Code. Similarly Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Agarwal, (supra), was also a case under the old Code. In Para 13 of the judgment the relevant discussion was made and it was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that the High Court was justified in taking into consideration the existing situation, particularly the situation when the order was passed. After taking into consideration the existing situation, the amount of maintenance, was fixed, and the same cannot be said to be excessive. In the instant case also after considering the existing situation and taking into account the entire evidence on record the amount of maintenance has been enhanced by the impugned order dated 20-10-83. Therefore, the aforesaid case is also of no assistance to the applicant. ( 12 ) AS regards the effect of the decree for divorce having been obtained by the applicant against the opposite party No. 1 is concerned that appears to be an ex parte decree and further the provisions of Section 125 are designedly worded. Under the Explanation (b) the wife, includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. Under the Explanation (b) the wife, includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. In this view of the matter the decree for divorce, either exporter or otherwise, could not stand in the way of any court allowing the application for maintenance. The provision is that even a divorced wife would be entitled to maintenance unless she bas remarried. ( 13 ) IN view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the court below immediately. Revision dismissed. .