JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the order dated May 1, 1992, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, in case No. 341/90. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Rathore, learned Counsel, that an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance to her and minor child. The Family Court, vide order dated March 12, 1986, rejected the claim of maintenance so far as the respondent was concerned, but awarded Rs. 100/- per month for Master Rinku. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal ( No. 254/87) before this Hon'ble Court, against the said order, which is still pending. 3. However, on May 5, 1989, an application under Section 127. Cr.P.C, was filed by the respondent on behalf of her son, Master Rinku, for enhancement of the amount of maintenance, on the ground that he is studying in New Look School for the last two years and the expenses for the studies are about Rs. 100/- per month. Apart from this, the other expenses of school uniform and daily meals etc. come to about Rs. 200/- per month. Therefore, it was prayed that since the respondent is unable to bear the said expenses, the maintenance amount of Master Rinku be increased from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- per month. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, vide his order dated May 1, 1992, increased the amount of maintenance of Master Rinku to Rs. 300/- per month. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that since the appeal filed by the respondent, against the order dated March 12, 1986, was still pending in this Court, the Family Court could not have considered application filed under Section 127, Cr.P.C, for enhancement of maintenance for minor son. It is further submitted that there was no evidence before the Court that the amount of Rs. 300/- is spent on education of Master Rinku. It is also submitted that the appellant filed proceedings for cruelty of Master Rinku and this Court passed the order in favour of the appellant, but the respondent has filed an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of this Court has been stayed. 300/- is spent on education of Master Rinku. It is also submitted that the appellant filed proceedings for cruelty of Master Rinku and this Court passed the order in favour of the appellant, but the respondent has filed an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of this Court has been stayed. It is pointed out that proceedings Under Section 125, Cr.P.C, have not yet attained finality, since the appeal filed by the respondent against the said order is still pending in this Court and, therefore, no application could be filed Under Section 127, Cr.P.C, till that appeal is decided. It is further pointed out that the appellant has filed an application to the effect before the learned Family Court, praying that Master Rinku be put in a Hostel for education and that he will be prepared to bear all the expenses. However, this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Family Court. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel and gone through the judgment of the learned Family Court. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel that till the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated March 12, 1986, which was filed in the year, 1987, is heard and decided, no application Under Section 127, Cr.P.C., could have been filed on behalf of Master Rinku. The amount of Rs. 100/- was fixed in the year, 1986. Since then the child has grown and it is important for his welfare that he should get proper education and, therefore, there was no legal bar against applying for increase of the maintenance amount under the provisions of Section 127, Cr P C When the appeal pending before this Court is heard, this Court will naturally take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance, sofar as Master Rinku is concerned, has already been increased from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- per month There is no reason why the child should suffer safar as his welfare is concerned, merely because the appeal takes time to be decided, in this Court. 7. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Family Court has erred in relying upon the statement of the respondent, regarding expenses on the education of the minor child. 7. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Family Court has erred in relying upon the statement of the respondent, regarding expenses on the education of the minor child. We have perused the order of the learned Judge, Family Court and we find that the evidence has been fully discussed and considered. It is for the Trial Court to rely or not rely upon the statement of any witness. It has been mentioned that the salary of the appellant has increased from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month. Keeping this in view, the amount has been raised from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- per month. 8. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******