ORDER Both these petitions arise out of the same judgment dated 11-6-1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, whereby the judgment dated 12-8-1991 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sirmaur District at Nahan was modified to the extent that the maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/- granted in favour of first respondent wife was increased to Rs. 300/- per month and the maintenance allowance of Rs. 400/granted in favour of second respondent daughter Miss Chamcham was increased to Rs. 500/- per month, therefore, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioner Ashok Nath Singh Panwar was married to first respondent Smt. Upasna Panwar in the year 1979 and second respondent Miss Chamcham was born out of their wedlock. After some time the relations between the husband and wife became strained and the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter. The application was resisted by the husband but ultimately allowed by judgment dated 21-2-1985 granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month to the daughter. Feeling aggrieved both the husband and the wife on her behalf and on behalf of her daughter filed revision petitions before the Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Nahan; the wife and the daughter challenging the quantum of maintenance granted to them and the husband against the grant of maintenance. The revision petition of the husband was dismissed but the revision petition of the wife and the daughter was allowed to the extent that maintenance allowance of the wife was enhanced to Rs. 150/- from Rs.100/- by a common judgment dated 19-4-1986, which was maintained by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 59 of 1986 filed on behalf of the husband. 3. The second round of litigation started when the wife filed an application under Section 127(1), Cr. P. C. on 3-4-1989 praying for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance to Rs.900/- per month from Rs. 350/. per month originally granted in her favour and in favour of her daughter. 3. The second round of litigation started when the wife filed an application under Section 127(1), Cr. P. C. on 3-4-1989 praying for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance to Rs.900/- per month from Rs. 350/. per month originally granted in her favour and in favour of her daughter. It was averred in para 8 of the application that at the time of grant of maintenance allowance by order dated 20-9-1983, the daughter was only of four years of age but afterwards she was admitted in DAV Public School at Nahan and was studying in 4th Class and an amount of Rs. 500/- per month was required to meet her expenses including of education. Another ground of enhancement of maintenance allowance of wife was that due to increase in prices, she could not maintain herself with the meagre amount of Rs. 150/- granted to her. In paragraph 9 it was further stated that in the meantime total emoluments of the husband had increased to Rs. 1900/- per month and he could afford the additional sum of maintenance allowance prayed by the wife and the daughter. 4. In reply to the application the husband denied that his total emoluments had increased to Rs. 1900/- and alleged that he was getting only Rs. 761/- after deductions. According to him the maintenance allowance already awarded to the daughter was sufficient to meet her expenditure including of education and so far wife was concerned, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance in view of the Order passed by Civil Judge, Dehradun refusing her the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, taking into consideration that she was owner of the property worth Rupees four to five lacs and was having income from it from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. 5. Besides filing this reply, the husband also moved an application under Section 127. Cr. P. C. on 26-6-1989 praying that the order dated 21-2-1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate be set aside and the amount received by the wife and the daughter be ordered to be refunded on the ground that the order 14-7-1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Dehradun refusing maintenance pendente lite to the wife on the ground of her having property worth lacs and income of a few thousands per month from the said property. In reply to this application the wife admitted that the Civil Judge, Dehradun passed order dated 14-7-1988 but submitted that this could not be made basis for denying her maintenance or its enhancement. 6. Both these applications were tried together and the order dated 12-8-1991 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the maintenance allowance of the wife was maintained, whereas, the maintenance allowance of the daughter was increased to Rs. 400/- from the date of the order. 7. Again, both the wife and the husband were aggrieved by the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and they filed counter revisions before the Sessions Judge, which have been decided by a common judgment dated 11-6-1992, impugned in the present petitions filed by the husband . The Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition of the husband holding that the wife as well as the daughter are entitled to the maintenance allowance. But he has allowed the revision petition filed by the wife modifying the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the extent that the wife is entitled to enhancement of maintenance allowance from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- per month and the daughter from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application. 8. The husband has filed criminal revision petition No. 82 of 1992 under Section 397 and 401, Cr. P. C. assailing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge to the extent. It has modified the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate enhancing the maintenance allowance. He has filed another petition Cr. M. P. (M) No. 976 of 1992 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge to the extent his revision petition was dismissed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate enhancing the maintenance allowance of daughter from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- per month. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Mr. S. S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the husband, has made three submissions, which will be dealt with one by one. The first submission is that in view of the judgment dated 14-4-1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Dehardun setting aside the order of maintenance pendente lite of Rs. Mr. S. S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the husband, has made three submissions, which will be dealt with one by one. The first submission is that in view of the judgment dated 14-4-1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Dehardun setting aside the order of maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 80/- per month granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the application for enhancement of the maintenance allowance was required to be rejected and the order dated 21-2-1985 granting her maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/- which was further increased to Rs. 150/- per month by the Sessions Judge by judgment dated 19-4-1986 was required to be set aside. His precise argument is that the order passed by the Civil Judge, Deharadun is binding on the Chief Judicial Migistrate trying the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. For making this submission Mr. Kanwar has relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Murlidhar Chintaman Waghmare v. Smt. Pratibha Murlidhar waghmare, 1986 Cri LJ 1216 and judgment of Madras High Coiurt in G. Ramanathan v. Mrs. Revathy, 1989 Cri LJ 2037. 10. In reply to this argument, Mr. Kuldip Singh, appearing on behalf of the wife and daughter, has pointed out that the case law cited by Mr. Kanwar is not applicable as the judgment under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not final determination under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which is of binding nature as held by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal, AIR 1978 SC 1807 : (1979 Cri LJ 3). In the opinion of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chanders case is complete answer to the argument raised by Mr. Kanwar. In its para 6 it has been laid down :- "Broadly stated and as an abstract proposition, it is valid to assert, as Sri Desai did, that a final determination of a civil right by a civil court must prevail against a like decision by a criminal court. But here two factors make the principle inapplicable. Kanwar. In its para 6 it has been laid down :- "Broadly stated and as an abstract proposition, it is valid to assert, as Sri Desai did, that a final determination of a civil right by a civil court must prevail against a like decision by a criminal court. But here two factors make the principle inapplicable. Firstly, the direction by the civil court is not a final determination under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act but an order pendente lite, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pay the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such, sum as having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. Secondly, this amount does not include the claim for maintenance of the children although the order does advert to the fact that the respondent has their custody. This incidental direction is no comprehensive adjudication." 11. So far the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Murlidhar (1986 Cri LJ 1216) is concerned, the similar principles have been followed by the Bombay High Court that proceedings in civil court are substantial whereas proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. are of summary nature, therefore, judgment of civil court, which is final and conclusive, is binding on criminal Court. So far the judgment in the case of G. Ramanathan (1989 Cri LJ 2037) of Madras High Court is concerned, it also lays down that it is not proper for the wife to file an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. when the civil court is already seized of the matter, under the Hindu Marriage Act. While referring to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the learned Judge has also mentioned the proceedings under Section 24 as well, but this Court respectfully disagrees with it, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chanders case (1979 Cri LJ 3). In the result, there is no force in the first argument raised on behalf of the husband and it is rejected. 12. The second argument raised by Mr. Kanwar on behalf of the husband, is that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties in respect of the property of the wife and income drawn by her therefrom. 12. The second argument raised by Mr. Kanwar on behalf of the husband, is that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties in respect of the property of the wife and income drawn by her therefrom. The precise grievance raised by him is that in the absence of allegations made in the application under Section 127, Cr. P. C. filed by the wife that the income of the husband has increased, the Courts below could not go into the fact that his income has almost doubled as such the wife and the daughter are entitled to enhancement accordingly. This argument has been raised to be rejected. As already noticed herein above, the wife did make averments in her application that the income of the husband has increased to Rs. 1900/- per month since the date of last order i.e. 21-2-1985. However, it was enough for the wife and the daughter to allege that they were entitled to enhancement of maintenance allowance on the ground of rise in prices and alteration in their needs. 13. So far as the evidence is concerned, Mr. Kanwar is not right in urging that it was not considered by the Courts below. (Paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate). However, looking to the vehemence with which Mr. Kanwar has urged this point, this Court has gone through the documents and in its opinion the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below is correct. The wife has admitted in her statement that there is one tenant in the ancestral house, who is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, in which she has 1/7th share. She has also not denied her share in the ancestral land. But it is not the ownership and possession of the land and property but the income from these which is material and needs to be considered for grant of maintenance allowance. Admittedly, the documents showing the income from the land are Goshwaras Takhmina Pedawar Exts. R-5, R6, and R-9, and Ext. R-10 is only duplicate of ExtV. R-5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated these documents to come to the conclusion that the annual income from land after deducting cost of cultivation might be in negative. Mr. Admittedly, the documents showing the income from the land are Goshwaras Takhmina Pedawar Exts. R-5, R6, and R-9, and Ext. R-10 is only duplicate of ExtV. R-5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated these documents to come to the conclusion that the annual income from land after deducting cost of cultivation might be in negative. Mr. Kanwar has urged that this inference drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge is not correct because in the Goshwara Takhmina Pedawar the average income is given after deducting the cost of husbandry. This Court is unable to accept this submission as it is not clear from these documents and the Revenue Authorities have given the total value of the produce of the land in question. Therefore, the income from the ancestral house as well as the land of the share of the wife is very negligible and the Courts below have rightly not taken it into consideration while assessing the maintenance allowance of the wife. (Please see Puran Singh v. Chitru Devi and Smt. Chitru Devi v. Puran Singh, (1990) 1 Sim LC176. 14. The statement of the husband is recorded on 16-3-1991. when in his cross-examination he has admitted that his gross salary was 2619.74 at that time. Though he has denied, at the first instance, that what was his gross salary at the time order dated 21-2-1985 was passed, yet immediately he corrected himself and answered that it might be Rs. 1100 to 1200/-. In otherords, the husband has admitted that his gross salary has increased more than double from the date when order dated 21-2-1985 was passed to the date when the order of enhancement dated 12-8-1991 was passed. Even if the voluntary deduction of C.P.F. and other funds is taken into consideration, the Courts below were right in holding that the net income of the husband was about Rs. 1405/-. Assuming this amount as correct, the wife as well as the daughter were entitled to 1/3rd of it each, subject to maximum limit of Rs. 500/- each, whereas, the Additional Sessions Judge has only granted Rs. 800/-. It has also come on record that the husband does not have any other liability. Therefore, this Court holds that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by way of enhancement to the wife and the daughter is fair, just and reasonable. 15. 800/-. It has also come on record that the husband does not have any other liability. Therefore, this Court holds that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by way of enhancement to the wife and the daughter is fair, just and reasonable. 15. The third point raised by Mr. Kanwar is that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in enhancing the maintenance allowance of the wife and the daughter from the date of the application. For making this submission, he has relied upon the judgments of Lahore High Court in Mt. Lilawati v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1935 Lahore 24 : (1936 (37) Cri LJ 68) and of Calcutta High Court in J. H. Amroon v. Miss R. Sassoon, AIR 1949 Cal 584 : (1949 (50) Cri LJ l006). So far judgment of Lahore High Court in Mt. Lilawatis case is concerned, it pertains to reducing the rate of maintenance allowance and the learned Judge has rightly held that it could not be done retrospectively. The same principle cannot be applied for enhancement of the rate of maintenance. It is correct that learned Judge of Calcutta High Court has held in J. H. Amroons case that order for increased maintenance should be made from the date of order and not from the date of application but his Lordship has not given any reason to come to this conclusion. Therefore, this Court respectfully disagrees with this view. Section 127, Cr. P. C. gives discretion to the Court to decide about the date from which the enhancement is to be granted taking into consideration different factors, such as the petition for enhancement may take some time for decision; the wife or the child or the parents might have taken loan which they have t|o repay and other similar circumstances which may show that the order enhancing the maintenance allowance from the date of order is not just and fair. Therefore, this Court rejects this submission that the impugned order is bad as the enhanced maintenance allowance has been granted from the date of application and not from the date of order 16. In the result, both these petitions fail and are rejected. Petition dismissed.