Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 20971-M of 2004 and Crl. Misc. No. 26747-M of 2004 filed by Khursheed Ahmad (husband) and Smt. Zakira (wife) respectively, against the common order dated 22.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Zakira filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband for providing interim maintenance to her as well as her two minor children. It was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner Zakira and Khursheed Ahmad was solemnized in the year 1993 according to Muslim Rites and Customs. After the marriage, the husband neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and her two minor children. It was alleged that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and she was turned out of her matrimonial home after giving beating. She is unable to maintain herself and her minor children. It was further alleged that the husband is an agriculturist and having an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum. He is also teaching in an Islamic School and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3. The husband contested the petition on the ground that the petitioner-wife herself had left the matrimonial home without there being any sufficient cause. It was further pleaded that he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence led by the parties, allowed the application of the petitioner-wife and awarded Rs. 500/- as interim maintenance to the wife and Rs. 200/- each to the children. 5. Aggrieved against the above-said order, the husband filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Before the revisional Court, the husband has placed on record the decree for restitution of conjugal rights dated 28.11.2002 passed against the wife by the Civil Court in which it was held that the petitioner wife had left the matrimonial home without there being any sufficient cause. The revisional Court while taking into consideration the said decree between the parties and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jasbir Singh v. Mrs. The revisional Court while taking into consideration the said decree between the parties and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jasbir Singh v. Mrs. Amrit Kaur Walia, 1991(2) RCR(Criminal) 306, has held that the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be proceeded with and decided till the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is complied with by the wife and till then she will not be entitled to any maintenance. Resultantly, revision petition was allowed and the order of interim maintenance passed in favour of the wife was set aside. However, the order of interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month each awarded to both the minor children was upheld. 6. Against the aforesaid orders, the husband as well as the wife have filed these two Crl. Misc. petitions. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties. It is not disputed before me that the husband instituted a civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 9.11.1998 against his wife Smt. Zakira. The said suit was contested by the wife. Various issues were framed and ultimately vide decree dated 28.11.2002, the suit of the husband was decreed and it was held that the respondent-wife had withdrawn herself from the matrimonial home of the husband without there being any just and reasonable cause. Against the said judgment and decree, the first and the second appeals filed by the wife were also dismissed. The finding recorded by the two Courts that the wife had left the matrimonial home without there being any sufficient cause, was affirmed by this Court vide order dated March 2, 2004 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 865 of 2004, while observing as under : "After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the judgments of both the Courts below, I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below because despite opportunities given to defendant-appellant No. 1, she has failed to disclose any lawful reason for abstaining from the company of her husband. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below. Even otherwise, these findings of facts cannot be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below. Even otherwise, these findings of facts cannot be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. The argument of the learned counsel that the plaintiff-respondent has concealed the agreement dated 26.7.2002 does not merit acceptance because the argument with regard to agreement has not been raised either before the trial Court or before the lower Appellate Court. For the first time, this agreement has been attached as Annexure A-2 with the instant appeal. In the absence of any notice of this agreement, it is not possible to appreciate the argument and give a finding in this second appeal that the plaintiff- respondent has concealed the aforementioned agreement causing prejudice to the rights of defendant-appellant No. 1. In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidus case (supra) would not be attracted to the facts of the present case because in that case the fraud was established and all the proceedings before the trial Court were held to have been vitiated. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed." 8. The learned counsel for the wife submitted that merely because the decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been obtained by the husband against his wife, it will not debar the wife from claiming the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she is unable to maintain herself. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court in Haizaz Pashaw v. Gulzar Banu and another, 2002 Cri.L.J. 3282. He also submitted that in this case the husband had obtained the decree of restitution of conjugal rights by playing fraud and suppressing the alleged agreement arrived at between the parties. He further argued that the amount of Rs. 200/- per month each awarded to both the minor children is totally inadequate keeping in view the income of the husband and the cost of living in these days. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband submitted that while passing the decree of restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, the Civil Court has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home of the husband without there being any justification or sufficient cause. He further submitted that the said decree was passed after contest. He further submitted that the said decree was passed after contest. The wife was given full opportunity to contest the suit and to lead the evidence. She challenged the said decree in first as well as in second appeals, which were dismissed, and the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the said finding and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jasbir Singhs case (supra), the revisional Court has rightly declined the interim maintenance to the wife. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the petition filed by the wife. In Jasbir Singhs case (supra), this Court has held that when there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife then the wife cannot be granted the interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In this case, admittedly, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against the wife and the same has become final. The said decree has not been complied with till date. While granting the said decree, a categorical finding has been recorded by the Civil Court that the wife had left the matrimonial home without there being any justification or sufficient cause. Sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive the interim maintenance if she without any sufficient reason refuses to live with her husband. Sub-section (5) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. further provides that on proof that any wife in whose favour an order of interim maintenance has been passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, the Magistrate shall cancel the said order. In this case, as per the finding recorded by the Civil Court, the petitioner wife had left the matrimonial home without there being any sufficient reason and the said decree has not been complied with so far. Therefore, in my view, the revisional Court has rightly held that the petitioner wife was not entitled for maintenance as ordered by the trial Court until and unless the decree dated 28.11.2002 for conjugal rights is complied with by her. The decision in Haizaz Pashaws case (supra) cited by the counsel for the wife is not applicable in the facts of this case. The decision in Haizaz Pashaws case (supra) cited by the counsel for the wife is not applicable in the facts of this case. In that case, the ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the Court and it was observed that the wife was not given proper opportunity to defend the case. But the facts in the instant case are different. Here the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed after providing full opportunity to the wife to contest the suit filed by the husband. Thus, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case. I also do not find any substance in the second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the alleged agreement between the husband and wife was not considered by the Civil Court while passing the decree for conjugal rights. Similar contention was raised by the counsel for the wife while arguing the second appeal filed by the wife against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the same was rejected by this Court. Thus, I do not find any merit in the petition filed by the wife, i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 26747-M of 2004, and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. The husband has challenged the orders passed by the Courts below granting Rs. 200/- each to both the minor children. Counsel submits that the husband is earning only Rs. 1200/- per month from the teaching job. He also denied that he is having any agriculture income. He further submits that once it was found that the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be proceeded till the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is complied with, then no interim maintenance can be awarded to the minor children also. I do not find any substance in either of the contentions raised by the counsel for the husband. The right of the minor children to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is independent to the right of the wife to claim maintenance. Merely because in view of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the husband, the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance till the said decree is complied, the minor children, who are unable to maintain themselves, cannot be denied the interim maintenance. Merely because in view of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the husband, the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance till the said decree is complied, the minor children, who are unable to maintain themselves, cannot be denied the interim maintenance. It is the legal and moral obligation of the father to maintain his children. Thus, I do not find any merit in the petition filed by the husband, i.e. Crl. Misc. 20971-M of 2004, and the same is also dismissed. 12. Though no petition for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the minor children has been filed, but I feel that the amount of Rs. 200/- awarded as interim maintenance to each of the minor children is not just and reasonable. Therefore, I suo motu took notice of the said order and asked the counsel for the husband to address the arguments why the amount of interim maintenance awarded to both the minor children be not enhanced. 13. I have heard the arguments on this aspect. In Kamaldeep Kaur and another v. Balwinder Singh, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 258, it has been observed by this Court that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., "...it is the duty of the Magistrate to provide just maintenance to the deserted wife or destitute child. The amount of maintenance should be such that a wife is able to maintain herself decently and with dignity. If after considering the material placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate thinks that a particular amount is reasonable amount, he is required to award the said amount as maintenance, and in my opinion, he cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such an amount in her application. Once the legislation has cast duty on the Court to award just and reasonable amount of maintenance in the facts and circumstances of a case, the same cannot be denied on mere technicalities." In my opinion, the amount of interim maintenance awarded to both the minor children is not just and sufficient at all, particularly keeping in view the value of the money in these days. Both the minors are of tender age and their mother will not be able to maintain them and provide them proper education with the meagre amount of Rs. 200/- awarded each to both the minor children. Both the minors are of tender age and their mother will not be able to maintain them and provide them proper education with the meagre amount of Rs. 200/- awarded each to both the minor children. Undisputedly, the husband is teaching in a school and his income cannot be less than Rs. 3000/- per month. Keeping in view these facts, the interim maintenance of both the minor children is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- each per month. Accordingly, the order dated 9.5.2003, passed by the trial Court is modified to the above extent.