B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner who is the wife of respondent No. 1 claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- till her regular maintenance application pending before the learned Magistrate is decided. ( 2 ) THERE is a chequered history between the parties. Her marriage took place on 1-5- 1985 and within less than 4 months it is alleged that she was driven out by her husband on 25- 1-1986 with the clothes put on by her. However, the matter was compromised between the parlies at the instance of other relatives and thereafter she had gone to stay with her husband. But even thereafter her husband ill-treated her and gave such medicine which caused abortion. Thereafter, her husband did not take any care of his wife nor made any attempt to take her back. Therefore, the wife had filed maintenance application being criminal miscellaneous application No. 622 of 1988 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. In that application she had filed interim maintenance application Exh. 7 on 16-5-1988 which was rejected by the learned J. M. F. C. on 17-1-1990. Thereafter, in H. M. P. filed between the parties, i. e. H. M. P. No. 67 of 1988 the matter was compromised and as per the terms of compromise both the applications, i. e. H. M. P. petition No. 67 of 1988 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 622 of 1988 were accordingly disposed of. However, thereafter again the wife was driven out by her husband. Therefore, she had filed maintenance application being criminal Misc. Application No. 404 of 1991 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Rajkot wherein application Exh. 5 was presented on 30-3-1991 claiming Rs. 1000/- per month till the maintenance application is decided. The respondent husband filed his reply Exh. 12 wherein he has denied all allegations made against him. However he has admitted that his monthly income is Rs. 1800/- only. As againt the case of the petitioner- wife is that her husband is serving in Sales Tax office and his monthly salary is Rs. 2000/ -. ( 3 ) THE learned J. M. F. C. by his order dated 27-1-1992 awarded Rs. 150/- towards interim maintenance to the petitioner instead of Rs. 1000/- claimed by her. 1800/- only. As againt the case of the petitioner- wife is that her husband is serving in Sales Tax office and his monthly salary is Rs. 2000/ -. ( 3 ) THE learned J. M. F. C. by his order dated 27-1-1992 awarded Rs. 150/- towards interim maintenance to the petitioner instead of Rs. 1000/- claimed by her. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner-wife preferred criminal revision application No. 13 of 1992 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot which came to be rejected by the learned additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 19-6-1992. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below the petitioner-wife has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) SHRI Vyas, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-wife vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have committed grave error in awarding only Rs. 150/- to the wife by way of interim maintenance particularly when the trial court has clearly found that the respondent-husband himself admitted in his reply that his monthly income is Rs. 1800/- and except the husband and wife there is no other liability on the shoulder of the husband to maintain anyone and therefore though rs. 1000/- was claimed by way of interim maintenance, the learned Magistrate should have awarded Rs. 500/- per month which is the maximum limit under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. As against that Shri Pandya, learned Advocate for the respondent-husband has submitted that the respondent-husband has already filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights that shows that the respondent-husband is ready and willing to take his wife back and therefore no amount should have been awarded by the courts below. However, he has not challenged the order of awarding Rs. 150/- passed in favour of wife by way of interim maintenance. In any case, in the alternative he has submitted that if the petitioner-wife is not satisfied with the amount of Rs. 150/- she can approach the learned Magistrate for enhancing the said amount but certainly the petition filed under article 227 before this Court is not a proper remedy. He also submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of constitution of India is not maintainable. 150/- she can approach the learned Magistrate for enhancing the said amount but certainly the petition filed under article 227 before this Court is not a proper remedy. He also submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of constitution of India is not maintainable. In any case it cannot be said that both the courts have not properly exercised their jurisdiction or committed any error in exercising their jurisdiction. Therefore, this, Court should not interfere in this petition which is filed under article 227 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) THERE is a lot of substance in the submission made by Shri Vyas who is appearing for the petitioner-wife. Once the Trial Court has clearly found the monthly income of the respondent-husband is Rs. 1800/- without any hesistation the learned Magistrate ought to have awarded Rs. 500/- per month by way of interim maintenance. It must be stated that the learned magistrate was very much aware of the fact that Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. is for providing maintenance to the helpless wife and to save her from starvation. He also considered the fact that since more than last 10 months she is denied any maintenance by her husband after filing of her maintenance application. He also considered that it would be very difficult for her to survive without maintenance. But after observing that without giving any reason he has only awarded Rs. 150/ -. When there are two units in the family, i. e. wife and husband then equity demand that minimum half of the salary of the husband should be paid to the wife. Unfortunately, the maximum limit provided under Section 125 of cr. P. C. is only Rs. 500/- therefore, without any hesitation the learned Magistrate should have awarded Rs. 500/- to the wife by way of interim maintenance. Rs. 150/- per month is no amount at all in these hard days by which a person can survive. In fact a cup of tea and bread costs rs. 5/- and that amount of Rs. 5/- per day is awarded to the wife by way of maintenance as Rs. 150/- per month is awarded to the wife. When the husband is well placed in his life and his salary is Rs. 1800/- per month, then if the wife is not entitled to half of the amount, i. e. Rs. 5/- and that amount of Rs. 5/- per day is awarded to the wife by way of maintenance as Rs. 150/- per month is awarded to the wife. When the husband is well placed in his life and his salary is Rs. 1800/- per month, then if the wife is not entitled to half of the amount, i. e. Rs. 900/- because of statutory limit of Rs. 500/- at least that amount of Rs. 500/- should have been awarded to her. Thus, the learned magistrate has committed jurisdictional error in not awarding Rs. 500/- which ought to have been corrected by the learned Additional sessions Judge in this revisional jurisdiction in a revision application filed by the petitioner- wife. Unfortunately, the learned Additional sessions Judge by quoting the judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts has rejected the revision application of the petitioner-wife on the ground that the learned magistrate has awarded Rs. 150/- to the wife and the husband is ready for immediate hearing of the maintenance application and held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference by his hand. ( 8 ) THE approach of the learned Additional sessions Judge is totally perverse. After quoting the judgments of the Supreme Court and the high Courts he has not at all discussed the same. How they are applicable in the facts of the present case is not at all stated. None of the judgments which are referred to in his order, has application at all in this case. The ground assigned by him is in fact no ground at all for rejecting revision application. Every husband would show his readiness to conduct the case immediately filed against him. Merely because the husband was ready to conduct the case, is no ground at all for the purpose of not providing interim maintenance. Thus, in my view the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not exercising his revisional jurisdiction and therefore, this Court is compelled to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution. ( 9 ) POWERS under Article 227 of the constitution of India are to be exercised in rarest of rare cases only when gross miscarriage of justice is done by the Courts below. ( 9 ) POWERS under Article 227 of the constitution of India are to be exercised in rarest of rare cases only when gross miscarriage of justice is done by the Courts below. In my view, there cannot be any better case than this case for this court to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as both the courts below have failed to exercise their powers in favour of the helpless wife, who was deserted by her husband, by awarding only Rs. 150/- per month instead of Rs. 500/- per month. Both the Courts below ought to have appreciated the fact that if the petitioner-wife was staying with her husband, one half of the income of the husband, i. e,at least Rs. 900/- per month would have been spent by her husband for her maintenance by way of food, cloth, etc. Unfortunately, under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. maximum amount which can be awarded to the wife is only Rs. 500/ -. Therefore respondent no. 1 is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner wife from the date of interim maintenance application, i. e from 30-3-1991 till the regular maintenance application is decided by the Trail court. ( 10 ) NEXT submission made by Mr. Pandya is that this Court should not entertain this petition by which the petitioner-wife wants enhancement of the maintenance amount. For the same she must be asked to file application under Section 126 of Cr. P. C. This submission is wholly without any substance. In fact she had claimed Rs. 1000/- per month by way of maintenance. She was entitled to get at least rs. 500/- which is statutory limit and as held in this judgment, she is entitled for the same. Therefore, the petitioner again cannot be asked to approach the learned Magistrate for enhancing the maintenance amount. It would be nothing but undue harassment to the petitioner-wife. Therefore, this submission of mr. Pandya is rejected. ( 11 ) ANOTHER submission made by Mr. Pandya is that the husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, this court should not enhance the maintenance amount. This submission is equally without any substance. Filing of petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband is nothing but undue harassment to the petitioner-wife. Pandya is rejected. ( 11 ) ANOTHER submission made by Mr. Pandya is that the husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, this court should not enhance the maintenance amount. This submission is equally without any substance. Filing of petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband is nothing but undue harassment to the petitioner-wife. His conduct has proved that he was not at all willing to take her back and to maintain her. All attempts made in the past for reconciliation have also failed. Therefore, merely because he has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights would not be a ground for this Court not to enhance the maintenance amount. Hence this contention raised by Mr. Pandya also fails and it is rejected. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is allowed. This order passed by the Court below awarding rs. 150/- to the petitioner-wife is modified by ordering the respondent No. 1 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application, i. e. from 30-3- 1991. Rule is made absolute. The husband shall pay the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month from this month and pay arrears of amount towards maintenance within three months from to-day. Petition allowed. .