P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) AS the facts and points for consideration as well as legal points involved are identical in both the revisional applications, I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as it appears from the revisional applications is that, Smt. Baby as Mahapatra, the wife and petitioner of C. R. R. No. 2582/ 01 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. before the learned judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah claiming maintenance @ rs 1500/- per month for herself and @ Rs. 1500/- per month for her minor son. It was alleged in the said application that she was married with the opposite party Debranjan Das Mahapatra (petitioner of C. R. R. No. 675/02) and the said marriage was registered on 1. 6. 92. After marriage they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock a male child was born to them in 1997. The husband wanted to terminate her pregnancy and started both physical and mental torture on her. Being unable to bear the torture of her husband she took shelter in her parents house and since then she is residing there. Her husband did not enquire about her and her minor son and did not pay any money on maintenance to them. Her husband is an employee of West Bengal Fisheries Corporation and earns more than rs. 6000/- per month as salary. ( 3 ) HER husband contested the case by filing written show cause wherein he denied all the material averments of the Section 125 application and inter alia contended that, his wife left his house voluntarily and did not come back after she was discharged from the hospital. His marriage with the petitioner was registered on 1. 6. 92 and thereafter there was ceremonial marriage on 21. 6. 94 at the temple of Goddess Kali at Kalighat and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. The child born to them is his child and he is willing and ready to take back his wife and the child. In spite of his requests his wife did not come back to his house. He has several dependants including his brother and sons and daughter of brother. The child born to them is his child and he is willing and ready to take back his wife and the child. In spite of his requests his wife did not come back to his house. He has several dependants including his brother and sons and daughter of brother. Besides that, his mother being old, is seriously ill and he has to bear huge medical expense behind mother. It is not possible for him to pay maintenance separately to his wife and son but, he is able to maintain them if they reside with him. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing both parties and taking evidence the learned magistrate allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. and granted maintenance @ Rs. 600/- per month for the wife and @ Rs. 400/- per month for the minor child and made the maintenance order effective from date of the order i. e. from 30. 5. 97. Being dissatisfied with the said order the wife as petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 420 of 1997 before the learned sessions Judge at Alipore and learned Additional Sessions Judge, 13th court disposed of the said revisional application and made the maintenance order effective from date of application i. e. from 2. 12. 95 and maintained the amount of maintenance as was assessed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 209 of 98 in the Court of the learned District Judge at Barasat for restitution of conjugal rights and it was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd court, Barasat and was renumbered as MAT Suit No. 95/98. In the said mat Suit the wife filed an application under Section 26 of the Special marriage Act claiming alimony pendente lite and the learned Judge allowed the prayer by order dated 19. 6. 01 and granted alimony pendente lite @ rs. 800/- each for herself and her minor son totalling Rs. 1600/- per month. The husband assailed the said order in this Court in Civil Revisional jurisdiction being C. O. No. 3060 of 2001 but. this Court by order dated 21. 11. 01 dismissed the said revisional application and affirmed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional district Judge also observed that the petitioner do get the said amount after deduction of Rs. this Court by order dated 21. 11. 01 dismissed the said revisional application and affirmed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional district Judge also observed that the petitioner do get the said amount after deduction of Rs. 1,000/- allowed to her as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate , 2nd Court, Sealdah praying for enhancement of the maintenance amount as it was'difficult for her to maintain herself and her minor son with such meagre amount. She contended that her son as a student of Hindu School and she had to spent huge amount for meeting educational cost of her son and also for meeting her own medical treatment and other daily need. In present days where prices of all essential commodities have increased the amount of maintenance is too inadequate to meet their daily requirement. Accordingly, she claimed maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month each for herself and her minor son. The husband as opposite party contested the matter before the learned Magistrate and filed written objection. The application filed by the wife under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. was treated as an application in the original Case No. M. 106 of 1995 and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 7. 8. 01 allowed the application in part and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1000/- per month in all to Rs. 2000/- per month in all for the petitioner wife and her minor son and also ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get the said amount after deducting Rs. 1600/- per month granted by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, barasat as alimony pendente lite. The learned Magistrate made the order effective from August, 2001. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order both the wife and the husband have moved this Court in these two separate revisional application and the revisional application filed by the wife as petitioner is C. R. R. No. 2582 of 2001 and the revisional application filed by the husband is C. R. R. No. 675 of 2002. ( 6 ) MR. ( 6 ) MR. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the wife petitioner contended that the minor son of the wife is a student of Hindu school and the wife has to bear huge amount behind the son to meet educational cost, for example, purchasing books and khatas, maintaining school dress and also to pay fees to private tutor be side that prices of all essential commodities have increased and unless the amount of maintenance is enhanced it would be difficult for her to maintain herself and her minor son. Medical expense also causes drainage of money as she is unwell and her son also requires medical treatment sometime. If the amount of Rs. 1600/- granted to her as alimony pendente lite is adjusted against the maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month granted by the learned Magistrate, the wife will get only Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance. The husband is an employee of West Bengal Pisheries corporation and he draws salary of more than Rs. 7000/- per month. The wife is entitled to at least 50% of husband's income and accordingly the amount of maintenance should be enhanced to at least Rs. 3000/- per month. If the maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- Per month she will get Rs. 1400/- as maintenance from Magistrate's Court after adjusting Rs. 1600/- granted by the learned Additional District Judge at Barasat. The husband is also not paying the amount granted by the learned Additional district Judge as alimony pendente lite and accordingly maintenance amount should be enhanced and the husband should be directed to pay forthwith the arrear amount of pendente lite which now stands approximately at Rs. 17000/ -. The salary certificate produced by the husband indicated some deductions and the husband is not entitled to all of such deductions in accordance with law particularly, the deductions for incurring personal loan in him. In support of his contention he cited the decisions reported in 1998 scc (Cri.) 160 (Sudeep Chaudharyv. Radha Chaudhary), 1996 SCC (Cri.) 53 (Sau Suman Narayan Niphade and Anr. v. Narayan Sitaram Niphade and anr.), 2001 (2) CLJ 393 (Smt. Anamika Sengupta v. Sri Biswajit Sengupta), crimes X 1984 (2) p. 662 (Smt. Raj Kumari v. Shri Dev Raj Vij), 1984 Cri. L. J. 341 (Siddiq Ahmad Sanji v. Smt. Parveen), 1994 Cri. Radha Chaudhary), 1996 SCC (Cri.) 53 (Sau Suman Narayan Niphade and Anr. v. Narayan Sitaram Niphade and anr.), 2001 (2) CLJ 393 (Smt. Anamika Sengupta v. Sri Biswajit Sengupta), crimes X 1984 (2) p. 662 (Smt. Raj Kumari v. Shri Dev Raj Vij), 1984 Cri. L. J. 341 (Siddiq Ahmad Sanji v. Smt. Parveen), 1994 Cri. L. J. 998 (Ashok nath Singh Panwar v. Upasna Panwar and Anr), 2000 (3) Crimes 427 (Hyder all v. Mustt. Ragia Begum) and Crimes X 1990 (3) p. 268 (Sambhunath jaiswal alias Sambhu Jaiswal v. Smt. Anjana Jaiswal and Ors. ). ( 7 ) MS. Mekhla Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for the husband contended that initially in the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. the wife was granted maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month in all, i. e. Rs. 600/- for herself and Rs. 400/- for her minor; son. The husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and in the said suit the wife filed an application under Section 26 of the Special Marriage Act claiming alimony pendente lite and the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat granted Rs. 1600/- in all to her @ Rs. 800/- per month each for her and her son. The husband challenged the said order in this Court in civil revisional jurisdiction being C. O. No. 3060 of 2001 but, the revision preferred by the husband was dismissed by order dated 21. 11. 2001 and this Court affirmed the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Thereafter, the wife filed the application under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month each for herself and her minor son and the learned magistrate allowed the said prayer and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1000/- per month to Rs. 2000/- per month. The husband produced his salary certificate which reveals that after deduction he is getting approximately Rs. 4000/ -. The husband has to maintain his mother who is old and ailing and he had to bear huge medical expense behind mother. Besides that, he has to spent some money for his own living and he has to maintain his unemployed brother and sons and daughters of brother. The wife is an M. A. in Political Science and is doing private tuition and she has earning from private tuition. Besides that, he has to spent some money for his own living and he has to maintain his unemployed brother and sons and daughters of brother. The wife is an M. A. in Political Science and is doing private tuition and she has earning from private tuition. Accordingly, there is no ground at all to further enhance the maintenance amount and rather maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate should be reduced and the revisional application filed by the husband being C. R. R. No. 675 of 2002 should be allowed. In support of her contention she cited the decisions reported in AIR 1963 Allahabad 143 (Km. Nafees Ara v. Asif Saadat All Khan), 1986 (1) CHN 46 (Sri Radha madhab Raj v. Krishna Ganguly) and 2000 (1) CHN 511 (Haridas bhattacharjee v. Smt. Suparna Bhattacharjee and Ors. ). ( 8 ) I have duly considered the submissions made in the learned advocates of the parties and perused the revisional applications and annexures made thereto. It is admitted that Smt. Baby Das Mahapatra (petitioner of C. R. R. No. 2582/01 and O. P. of C. R. R. No. 675/02) is the married wife of Debranjan Das Mahapatra (petitioner of C. R. R. No. 675/02 and O. P. of C. R. R. No. 2582/01) and their marriage was registered on 1. 6. 92 before the Marriage Registrar of Baisakhi Abasan, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. It is also admitted that out of then wedlock a child was born to them on 19. 7. 95. It is admitted that the wife filed application under Section 125 of cr. P. C. in Case No. M-106/95 (F. R. No. 2/96) and the learned Judicial magistrate, 2nd Court by order dated 30. 5. 97 allowed the said application in part and granted maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 600/- per month and to the minor son @ Rs. 400/- per month and directed that the said amount of rs. 1000/- in all is payable from date of the order. There is no dispute that the wife being aggrived with the said order filed a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore which was registered as criminal Revision No. 420 of 1997 and the learned Additional Sessions judge, 13th Court by order dated 17. 7. 1000/- in all is payable from date of the order. There is no dispute that the wife being aggrived with the said order filed a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore which was registered as criminal Revision No. 420 of 1997 and the learned Additional Sessions judge, 13th Court by order dated 17. 7. 98 disposed of the revisional application by maintaining the amount of maintenance granted by the learned magistrate but, modifying the date of order effective from date of application i. e. from 2. 11. 95. It is also admitted that subsequently the husband filed mat Suit No. 209/98 in the Court of the learned District Judge at Barasat and the said suit was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District judge, 2nd Court, Barasat and was renumbered as MAT Suit No. 95/98. In the said MAT Suit the wife filed an application under Section 26 of the special Marriage Act claiming alimony pendente lite for her and her minor son and the learned Additional District Judge by order dated 19. 6. 01 granted alimony pendente lite to her @ Rs. 800/- each per month to her and her minor son totalling Rs. 1600/- per month. The husband challenged the said order in this Court in C. O. No. 3060 of 2001 but this Court by order dated 21. 11. 01 affirmed the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dismissed the civil revision filed by the husband. Thereafter, the wife filed application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. praying for enhancement of maintenance amount under provisions of Cr. P. C. due to change of circumstances for the increase of prices of all essential commodities and to meet huge educational cost of her son. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 7. 8. 01 enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 2000/- per month from rs. 1000/- per month. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the wife has filed revisional application bieng C. R. R. No. 2582 of 2001 for enhancement of maintenance amount alleging that the amount granted in the learned Magistrate is inadequate. The husband has also preferred a separate revision being C. R. R. No. 675 of 2001 alleging that the maintenance amount granted by the learned Magistrate is harsh and excessive as the wife is already getting Rs. The husband has also preferred a separate revision being C. R. R. No. 675 of 2001 alleging that the maintenance amount granted by the learned Magistrate is harsh and excessive as the wife is already getting Rs. 1600/- per month as alimony pendente lite from Barasat Court. ( 9 ) THE crux for consideration is whether the wife is entitled to further enhancement when according to her own case the husband's income is rs, 7,000/- per month and the husband is an employee of West Bengal fisheries Corporation. It appears that before the learned Magistrate the husband produced one salary certificate in which his income was shown rs. 6,679/ -. The deductions mentioned in the said statement was Rs. 712/- towards G. P. Fund, Rs. 500/- for marriage loan and Rs. 1443/- for taking loan from bank and after such deductions he got Rs. 3919/- net. Before this court one salary statement for July, 2004 has been shown which shows husband's gross income is Rs. 7951/- and the deductions are C. P. Fund rs. 861/-, Marriage Advance Rs. 250/-, P. Tax Rs. 50/- and personal bank loan Rs. 2392/- and after deduction his net salary was Rs. 4,398/ -. The husband is not entitled to all the deductions as mentioned in the salary certificate. Deduction towards C. P. Fund or G. P. Fund is admissible at the rate of 6% of pay and 6% of Rs. 7950/- comes to Rs. 477/- and he is entitled to deduction of Rs. 50/- for professional Tax thus in all he is entitled to deduction of Rs. 527/ -. He is not entitled to advantage of deduction of rs. 250/- for the marriage advance and Rs. 2392/- for personal bank loan. If the amount of Rs. 527/- is deducted from Rs. 7951/- his net income comes to Rs. 7424/ -. Generally 1/4th of 1/5th of the husband's income is allowed to the wife as maintenance. Of course, there are decisions that a Magistrate is empowered to grant maintenance higher in amount than, the amount granted by Civil Court as alimony pendente lite. This Court in Smt. Anamika sengupta (supra) observed that even 1/3rd of salary of husband may be allowed to the wife as alimony pendente lite. This Single Bench decision has not yet got the affirmation from higher Bench or from the Hon'ble supreme Court. This Court in Smt. Anamika sengupta (supra) observed that even 1/3rd of salary of husband may be allowed to the wife as alimony pendente lite. This Single Bench decision has not yet got the affirmation from higher Bench or from the Hon'ble supreme Court. The learned Magistrate has already allowed the amount to rs. 2000/- per month. The wife is getting alimony pendente lite @ rs. 1600/- per month. Accordingly to the decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary (supra) the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is adjustable against amount awarded in matrimonial proceedings. The amount granted by the learned Magistrate @ Rs. 2000/- per month if adjusted against alimony pendente lite amount of Rs. 1600/- per month, the wife is entitled to get Rs. 400/- only from magistrate's Court. Of course, she is entitled to get in all Rs. 2000/- per month, i. e. Rs. 1600/- from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, barasat and Rs. 400/- per month from the Court of learned Judicial magistrate, Sealdah. ( 10 ) THE decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the husband are not applicable in this case as the legal principles are well settled. Section 125 Cr. P. C. was enacted as a social measure to provide quick relief to the wives who are neglected by their husbands and its object is to compel husbands to perform their moral obligations in respect of their wives and children so that they are not driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases including Sudeep Chaudhary (supra) has made the legal position settled that amount of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. is adjustable against the amount in matrimonial proceeding. It presupposes that pendency of a matrimonial suit cannot be a bar to continue proceeding under Section 125 or 127 of Cr. P. C. It is also settled that a Magistrate is empowered to grant higher maintenance amount than the amount granted by Civil Court in matrimonial proceeding as alimony pendente lite. ( 11 ) THE husband hassomeduty to maintain his old ailing motherand to bear medical expenses and other costs for maintenance of mother and his own maintenance. P. C. It is also settled that a Magistrate is empowered to grant higher maintenance amount than the amount granted by Civil Court in matrimonial proceeding as alimony pendente lite. ( 11 ) THE husband hassomeduty to maintain his old ailing motherand to bear medical expenses and other costs for maintenance of mother and his own maintenance. His claim of maintaining his brother and children of brother is not acceptable because it is his prime duty to maintain his wife and own child first, and thereafter, to consider the maintenance of children of brother. He is not entitled to neglect his wife and own minor son and even if he was not a Government employee and was unemployed he was bound to maintain his wife and children. It is true that in such a case Court has to consider what reasonable quantum of maintenance can be granted in favour of the wife and her minor son. The husband alleged that his wife is earning. In private tuition but, before the learned Magistrate he could not produce either oral or documentary evidence to establish his case that wife has own income from private tuition. Accordingly, the finding of the learned magistrate that the wife has no income of her own to maintain herself and her minor son requires no interference. There was no evidence before the court to show that the husband sent any money or maintenance to wife and minor son. This fact establishes neglect of the husband to maintain his wife and children. ( 12 ) IT is true that now-a-days prices of all essential commodities have increased and at the same time costs of education have increased. Still the income of the husband cannot be ignored and he cannot be ordered to pay a huge amount which may create heavy burden on him and the same amount may become harsh and excessive. It has already been mentioned above that the wife is getting Rs. 2000/- per month in all including the amounts of civil Court and Criminal Court. The amount of alimony pendente lite will cease of exist after disposal of the matrimonial suit but the amount of maintenance granted under Section 125 or under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. will continue till the wife remarries and the son becomes major or there is any other change of circumstances. The amount of alimony pendente lite will cease of exist after disposal of the matrimonial suit but the amount of maintenance granted under Section 125 or under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. will continue till the wife remarries and the son becomes major or there is any other change of circumstances. Considering the income of the husband and considering the amount the wife is getting already as maintenance, I think that it would meet ends of justice if the amount of maintenance is enhanced to Rs. 2400/- per month i. e. @ Rs. 1200/- each per month for the wife Baby Das Mahapatra and her minor son. The order of the learned magistrate is accodingly modified and the maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs. 2400/- per month as indicated above. This amount is payable from the date of order of the learned Magistrate and this amount is subject to adjustment of the amount granted to the wife and her minor son as alimony pendente lite. Regarding arrear maintenance amount the wife would file proper applications in the Courts below for realisation when the learned magistrate will act in accordance with law. In this matter this Court cannot direct the husband to pay arrear amount of alimony pendente lite and the wife should approach the concerned matrimonial Court for realisation of the arrear alimony pendente lite amount. ( 13 ) THE revisional applications are accordingly disposed of in the light of the observations made above. This order will govern both the revisional applications bearing C. R. R. No. 2582/01 and C. R. R. No. 675/02. ( 14 ) SEND a copy of this orderto the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd court. Sealdah for information and necessary action. Urgent xerox certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously.