Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner-husband has impugned the order dated 25.9.1997 passed by the Family Court, Dhanbad, by reason of which, being approached by the wife-opposite party, the Court has enhanced the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs. 150.00 to Rs. 500.00 per month exercising its power under Sec. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the opposite party is the lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner and she some time in 1978, filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. claiming mainte- nance. The petitioner contested the claim but by order dated 31.1.1978 the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 150.00 per month as monthly maintenance allowance for her as well as her three minor children considering the earning of the petitioner as Rs. 600.00 by way of monthly salary. Subsequently, in the year 1997 an application under Sec. 127 of the Code was filed, inter alia, asserting that whereas the salary of the husband-petitioner has been increased to the tune of Rs. 5,000.00 per month, she is getting Rs. 150.00 a month, due to which she is unable to meet her monthly expenses as price of essential commodities has readied a sky limit. Tlie son as AW 2 has also supported the case of his mother by stating that she has no other source of income and is unable to maintain herself in such a petty sum of Rs. 150.00 . According to him, his father is getting a salary of Rs. 5,000.00 per month for working in Lodna colliery of the BCCL. Neither the wife nor the son were subjected to any cross-examination and as such, their testimonies stand uncontroverted. However, the petitioner-husband had taken a stand that his wife lives with his younger brother Subir Pasi, with whom she has illicit relationship. He has refuted the claim of the wife that his monthly salary was Rs. 5,000.00 per month but has admitted that he gets a monthly salary of Rs. 3005.00 . Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, he Family Court disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner that his wife was having illicit relationship with Subir and considering that all the three children have now become major and thus not en ti tied for the maintenance but has allowed a sum of Rs. 3005.00 . Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, he Family Court disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner that his wife was having illicit relationship with Subir and considering that all the three children have now become major and thus not en ti tied for the maintenance but has allowed a sum of Rs. 500.00 per month as maintenance to the wife. 3. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that in view of the fact that an order of maintenance under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 31.1.1978, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed in the same case under Sec. 127 of the Code. Referring to various annexures learned Counsel further contended that when the brother of the petitioner namely, Subir, after death of his first wife, remarried the opposite party Sugmanti Pasin, the petitioner cannot be directed to pay the enhanced monthly maintenance to her. 4. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, has contended that in order to absolve himself from legal liability, the petitioner has raised all sorts of frivolous grounds in opposing the claim of the wife. 5. The Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted in the year 1984 though provisions of the Act were enforced in different States on different dates. Chapter III of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Court and Sec. 7(2) reads as follows : "(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act a Family Court shall also have and exercise- (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enact- ment." Similarly, by reason of Sec. 8 of the Act, the jurisdiction and power of the Magistrate, in relation to such area where provisions of this Act are applicable, has been excluded to deal with the matter as contemplated under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, from a conjoint reading of the provisions aforesaid, it is clear that after application of the provisions of the Act in the State of Bihar, the Family Court is the only forum before which disputes relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parentsas well as other provisions in Chapter IX of the Code can be maintained. Therefore, even though the order under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. was passed in favour of the opposite party by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.1.1978 but subsequently in the year 1997 the opposite party could not have approached the same Magisterial Court for passing an order under Sec. 127, Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances, in my view, the first objection raised by Mr. Jha must be rejected. 6 Coming to the factual aspect of the matter, it is to be noticed that though the petitioner has tried to escape the liability.of paying enhanced maintenance, by asserting that his wife has married his brother Subir Pasi, but except such statement no witness was examined in this regard. In his show cause before the Family Court while stating that his wife, after leaving him, started living with Subir Pasi, his younger brother as husband and wife, but on the same breath he has stated that he is ready and willing to live with opposite party as husband and wife at his residence. 7. Annexure 2 to the show cause is a document which reveals that wife of Subir namely, Torwanti died in the year 1975. Annexure 3 is also to the same effect. Other two documents, namely, Annexures 4 and 4/1, which are extracts of documents maintained by the employer of Subir Pasi, do not reveal that the opposite party Sugmanti Pasin is the wife of Subir Pasi. Both these documents show that Torwanti, wife of Subir, has died. Anftexure 5 is a letter dated 6.1.1996, by which the petitioner requested the management to make enquiry against Sugmanti Pasin, wife of Subir Pasi. The petitioner requested the General Manager that Sugmanti is being paid his wages on deduction from his salary as his wife but she is the wife of Subir Pasi and as such, enquiry should be completed in this regard. Except the aforesaid docu- ments there is nothing on record to show that opposite party is living with Subir as husband and wife. Except the aforesaid docu- ments there is nothing on record to show that opposite party is living with Subir as husband and wife. If actually the opposite party has remarried Subir deserting the petitioner, the petitioner would have filed a petition before the competent Court of law for restitution of conjugal right. Admittedly, that has not been done. Moreover, as observed earlier if actually the opposite party has married Subir, the petitioner would not have expressed his willingness to live with opposite party as husband and wife. This very fact clearly indicates that the petitioner has deserted his wife Sugmanti and as such, a petition under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. was filed and order was passed against him in the year 1978. In the premises, I am of the view that the Family Court has rightly concluded that the allegation of remarriage of the opposite party with Subir is unbelievable and not trustworthy. 8. Now coming to the question of enhancement in the rate of maintenance, it cannot be denied that since 1978 there is a soaring price rise of necessary articles, which are basic requirement for human being. In 1978 when petitioner was getting Rs. 600.00 per month, the Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed maintenance of Rs. 150.00 per month for the wife and three minor children. In 1997 when there is enhancement of salary of the petitioner from Rs. 600.00 to Rs. 3,500.00 per month, there is no reason as to why the amount of maintenance should also be not enhanced. The Family Court has rightly held that as because the three minor children have become adult they are not entitled to get any maintenance. However, considering the facts and circumstances and specially hike on the price rise, the Family Couri has allowed maintenance of Rs. 500.00 per month to the opposite party i.e. enhance- ment of Rs. 350.00 , which, in my view, is not excessive and cannot be interfered with. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 11.11.1997 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay the maintenance per month as directed by the Family Court on 25.9.1997.