J. N. BHATT, J. : -, J. ( 1 ) BY this revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (code for short, hereinafter), the petitioner has questioned the quantum of maintenance awarded to her in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 1982, on 29-11-1982, by the learned judicial magistrate, First Class, at Bhavnagar. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner is, thus, the original applicant-husband and the parties are hereinafter addressed to as applicant-wife and opponent- husband for the sake of convenience and brevity. ( 3 ) THE original applicant-wife claimed Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance from the original opponent-husband, under Section 125 of the Code, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. She, inter alia, contended that she was driven out of the matrimonial home, mercilessly, as her husband had entered into illicit relation with one lady-Mansa. Three sons were bom out of the wedlock between the parties, which took place in the year 1957, as per Hindu rites. Eldest son-Pankaj, was major when the petition for maintenance came to be filed. Other two sons were minors at that time and they were aged about 12 and 9 years. There is no dispute about the fact that all the three sons are with the original opponent-husband. Equally true is the fact that the original applicant-wife is staying with her mother. The wife further contended that her husband is earning about Rs. 2500/- per month by running a lathe factory. Thus, she pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and she was neglected by her husband, who is a moneyed man. Therefore she claimed Rs. 500/- by way of maintenance for herself from the husband. The original opponent-husband appeared and resisted the claim for maintenance. ( 4 ) THE applicant-wife relied on the evidence of six witnesses over and above her evidence. The opponent-husband relied on his evidence only. ( 5 ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Bhavnagar, came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to maintenance and he was pleased to award Rs. 85/- per month by way of her maintenance from the opponent-husband. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded, the original applicant-wife has, now, come up before this Court, challenging its legality and validity. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. 85/- per month by way of her maintenance from the opponent-husband. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded, the original applicant-wife has, now, come up before this Court, challenging its legality and validity. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. S. N. Gandhi for the petitioner/original applicant-wife, vehemently contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is, grossly, inadequate. This contention is countered by the learned counsel Mr. D. S. Desai for the respondent No. I/original opponent-husband. ( 8 ) IN short, the controversy is circumscribed to a very narrow compass. In this petition the dispute revolves round as to whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is adequate and proper or not. ( 9 ) THE trial Court has held that the wife would be entitled to Rs. 175/- per month for her maintenance. However, the trial court observed that the wife was engaged in flower selling work and, therefore, she must be earning Rs. 90/- per month. Hence, an amount of Rs. 90/- is deducted from the amount of Rs. 175/- which is the amount held to be entitled to by the wife by way of maintenance. Hence, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs. 85/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of the application. ( 10 ) INCIDENTALLY, it may be mentioned that mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the opponenthusband, is right in contending that the revisional court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court on the quantum of maintenance unless and until it is, grossly, inadequate or there is perversity therein. The jurisdictional sweep of rcvisional court in a case of one on hand is very much circumscribed. Therefore, the rcvisional court will be loath to interfere with the finding of the trial court unless and until the perversity is pointed out or misreading of evidence is, successfully, spelt out. The proposition of law is not in dispute. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, a question would arise as to whether the finding of the trial court with regard to the amount of maintenance is just and proper or not in the light of the aforesaid legal proposition. The proposition of law is not in dispute. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, a question would arise as to whether the finding of the trial court with regard to the amount of maintenance is just and proper or not in the light of the aforesaid legal proposition. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can, spontaneously, be concluded that the entire approach of the learned Magistrate is not only improper but is, totally, misconceived, totally perverse and erroneous. The learned trial Magistrate has assumed that the wife must be earning Rs. 3/- per day out of selling flowers. This presumption is founded upon an admission of one of the witnesses of the petitioner-wife that the wife and her mother are selling flowers. It is apparent that the learned trial Magistrate has misread and has wrongly accused in so far as the income of the wife is concerned. There is no dispute about the fact that the wife is staying with her mother. Her mother is dealing with flowers, garlands and other items of flowers and she is doing this type of work at her residence. It is found from the evidence on record that the wife, while being with her mother, was helping her in the said work of selling flowers. Simply because she was assisting her mother, it cannot be straightway concluded that she was independently earning and that too Rs. 3/- per day. Such a conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate is devoid of any of facts. This presumption is, totally, misconceived. Obviously, a lady who is staying at the parental house would do something so that she can get her two ends meet In the facts of the present case, the wife was assisting her mother in selling flowers. However, that fact itself would not be a pointer or indication that she was independently earning or that she has independent source of income of her own. There is no evidence on record to even conclude that on account of her assisting the mother in the work of the mother in selling flower has augmented or there was any increase in the income of the mother out of the said work. Despite this factual position, the learned trial magistrate reached to, straightway, unwarranted conclusion that she must be earning Rs. 90/- per month. Such a conclusion is totally perverse. Despite this factual position, the learned trial magistrate reached to, straightway, unwarranted conclusion that she must be earning Rs. 90/- per month. Such a conclusion is totally perverse. ( 12 ) AGAIN, it may also be noted at this stage that the admission of a witness on which reliance is placed by the learned Magistrate is to the effect that the mother of the applicant-wife and the applicant-wife, both are doing the work of flower selling and has been earning Rs. 100 to rs. 151/- per month. Even assumming for the sake of argument that this was the income of both these persons, even then, it never exceeded Rs. 75/- per person per month. Despite this, the learned Magistrate concluded that the wife must be earning Rs. 3/- per one day. This is highlighted with a view to show the perverse approach of the learned Magistrate. In any case, the conclusion that the wife must be earning Rs. 90/- per month is illegal and based on unwarranted conjectures and surmises. In short, the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that the wife must be earning Rs. 90/- per month is, totally erroneous as pointed out earlier and, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 90/- from the amount of maintenance cannot be allowed to stand. ( 13 ) THE question now would arise as to what should be the quantum of maintenance in the facts of the present case. It is true that the quantum of maintenance is to be awarded on the basis of income and the earning capacity of the husband, his liabilities, the basis needs of the applicant, the status of the parties and other relevant circumstances. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is no evidence that the wife has any independent source of income. With the reault, she is, totally, unable to maintain herself as she has no means of her own maintenance. Secondly, there is no dispute about the fact that the opponant-husband is running a lathe factory. The dispute centres round the quantum of his income. The applicant-wifes evidence indicates that her husband was earning Rs. 2500/- per month at the relevant time by running lathe factory. Three witnesses are examined by the applicant-wife on this point. The opponant-husband has contended that he is earning Rs. 1000/- per month and so has the liability to maintain three sons. The applicant-wifes evidence indicates that her husband was earning Rs. 2500/- per month at the relevant time by running lathe factory. Three witnesses are examined by the applicant-wife on this point. The opponant-husband has contended that he is earning Rs. 1000/- per month and so has the liability to maintain three sons. Needless to mention that three sons are with the husband. It may also be mentioned that the eldest son was aged 19 years at the time when the petition for maintenance was filed. He is assisting his father in the lathe factory. Two other sons were minors when the maintenance application came to be filed. The applicant-wife has claimed Rs, 500/- per month by way of maintenance. It is also, forcefully, contended on behalf of the petitioner/original applicant-wife that the wife would be entitled to Rs. 500/- per month by way of her maintenance. This contention is, seriously, opposed by the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent/original opponent-husband. ( 14 ) IT is true that the word "maintenance" occurring in Section 125 of the Code is not statutorily defined. But, undoubtedly, it includes, food, clothing, shelter, medical expences and other expenses related to the normal pursuits of life. While considering the quantum of maintenance, these aspects have to be borne in mind. It appears that the learned trial Magistrate has failed to appreciate these aspects while fixing the quantum of maintenance. The evidence of the applicant-wife that the opponent-husband is earning rs. 2500/- per month out of lathe factory business is supported by the evidence of three witnesses : (1) Magji Jadavaji Barod, Ex. 16, (2) dhirubhai Navalsingh, Ex. 20 and (3) Rameshchandra mohanlal Kanada, Ex. 22. The evidence of these three witnesses is disbelieved by the learned trial Magistrate on the wrong assumption. The aforesaid three witnesses are also concerned and connected with the factory business or work and one of them had also worked as mechanic or assistant with the husband-opponent in the factory, which is run in the name of "laxmi Mechanical". The approach of the trial magistrate in disbelieving the evidence of these three witnesses is not only hyper-technical but is also, totally, illegal. It appears from the evidence of these three witnesses that the income of the opponent- husband, at the relevant point of time, was more than Rs. 2500/- per month. The approach of the trial magistrate in disbelieving the evidence of these three witnesses is not only hyper-technical but is also, totally, illegal. It appears from the evidence of these three witnesses that the income of the opponent- husband, at the relevant point of time, was more than Rs. 2500/- per month. Despite this clear evidence, the learned trial Magistrate has discarded the evidence of the wife, supported by the evidence of these three witnesses. ( 15 ) MOREOVER, it may be mentioned that the opponent-husband, who is examined at Ex. 40 has admitted in his evidence that he maintains books of accounts. However, for the reasons best known to him, the books of accounts are not produced. He has not led any other evidence, oral or decumantary. It is also found from the evidence on record that he is running a lathe factory wherein his elder son, Pankaj, is associate with him. Even the dispute about the number of lathe machines in the factory of the opponent-husband is also not correctly appreciated by the learned trial Magistrate. There is evidence to show that there are 3 to 4 lathe machines in the lathe factory of the opponent/husband. Even the value of the machines installed in the said lathe factory is given by one of the witnesses of the original appplicant-wife. For non-production of books of account, though maintained, adverse inference could safely be drawn. It can safely be concluded from the evidence on record that the opponent/ husband would be earning more than Rs. 2500/- at the relevant point of time out of the lathe factory business. As observed hereinbefore, the wife has no any independent sour, if income and she is unable to maintain herself. ( 16 ) ONE more important aspect while fixing the quantum of maintenance which is required to be borne in mind is the value of rupee. The Court cannot be oblivious to the hard fact about the real value of rupee while fixing the quantum of maintenance alongwith other circumstances, as aforesaid. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the applicant/wife would be entitled to at least Rs. 175 per month for her maintenance. No doubt, the amount of Rs. 90/- came to be deducted from the said amount because the trial magistrate held that the wife must be presumed to be earning Rs. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the applicant/wife would be entitled to at least Rs. 175 per month for her maintenance. No doubt, the amount of Rs. 90/- came to be deducted from the said amount because the trial magistrate held that the wife must be presumed to be earning Rs. 90/- per month out of flower selling business done alongwith her mother. As observed hereinbefore, this conclusion is erroneous. With the result, even, according to the observation of the learned Magistrate, the wife shall be entitled to Rs. 175/- per month for her maintenance. In the light of the evidence on record and considering the income of the opponent/husband and the fact that the wife has to stay with her mother, at her mercy, and the sharp fall in value of rupee, the wife would be entitled to at least Rs. 250/- per month towards her maintenance. With the result, the amount of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month by the learned Magistrate is required to be upwardly modified. ( 17 ) IN the result, the applicant-wife is found entitled to Rs. 250-Rs. 85 = Rs. 165/- by way of additional amount of maintenance per month from the opponent-husband from the date of the application. The Court is conscious of the fact that the maintenance application came to be filed on 2-6-1982 and the amount in view of the order of this Court, would be running into arrears not less than Rs. 16,000/ -. Therefore considering the facts of the present case and the income of the husband, higher amount could have been awarded by this Court. But, since this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs. 250/- per month instead of Rs. 85/- per month as awarded by the learned magistrate, from the date of the application, under Section 125 of the Code, an amount of Rs. 250/- per month is considered just and reasonable. Since this Court has found that the fixation of quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month by the trial Magistrate is grossly inadequate and tainted with perversity, this Court has not option but to set it aside. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present revision application is partly allowed. The amount of Rs. 85/- per month by the trial Magistrate is grossly inadequate and tainted with perversity, this Court has not option but to set it aside. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present revision application is partly allowed. The amount of Rs. 85 fixed by the learned Magistrate, by way of quantum of maintenance from the date of the application, is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month towards the maintenance of the wife under Section 125 of the Code. The amount already paid or deposited by the opponent/husband shall, obviously, be deducted from the arrears of amount to be calculated at the rate of rs. 250/- per month. Since the matter is of 1982 and the difference of amount to be deposited or paid by the opponant-husband would be higher, it is thought expedient to grant time of three months of payment of difference of the amount towards the arrears of maintenance. ( 19 ) WITH these observations, the revision petition is, partly, allowed with the cost which is quantified at Rs. 500/ -. ( 20 ) RULE made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .