Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No. 1 wife preferred the application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, before the learned Magistrate being Criminal Application No. 86 of 1995. The learned Magistrate ultimately passed the order, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month vide judgement dated 31.3.1997. It appears that thereafter since the said amount was not sufficient, another application was preferred under Section 127 of CrPC, by the respondent No. 1 being Criminal Application No. 53 of 2003 for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 2,000/- per month from Rs. 400/- per month. The learned Magistrate in the said matter ultimately passed the judgement and order, whereby he has directed the petitioner to pay an additional maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month, total Rs. 700/- per month vide judgement dated 21.9.2006. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate, preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 263/2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara. In the said revision, the learned Judge, by allowing the revision, has directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance at Rs. 3,000/- per month and has also directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No. 1 and it is under these circumstances the present petition before this Court. 1.1. I have heard Mr. Makwana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prajapati, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Raval, learned APP for the respondent State. 2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the income of the petitioner is too low, since he is doing the work of electrician and has passed 9th Standard and he has also solemnised second marriage and has to maintain the second wife and also the mother and, therefore, awarding the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month is contrary to the evidence on record and also exceeding the prayer made by the wife - respondent No. 1 herein before the trial Court. It was submitted that the learned Sessions Judge by ordering the maintenance of the amount exceeding the amount prayed, has committed error of jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court may quash the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of the Magistrate be maintained. 3. Whereas on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it was submitted by Mr. It was submitted that the learned Sessions Judge by ordering the maintenance of the amount exceeding the amount prayed, has committed error of jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court may quash the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of the Magistrate be maintained. 3. Whereas on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it was submitted by Mr. Prajapati that the discretion vests to the learned Sessions Judge to pass just and proper order for maintenance. He submitted that even if the prayer is made of Rs. 2,000/-, it is not necessary that the Court may grant such prayer of the same amount. In a given facts and circumstances, the Court may grant less than the amount or higher than the amount prayed and, therefore, it cannot be said as an error of jurisdiction. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has found that considering the present situation of the cost of living, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- appears to be reasonable and, therefore, Rs. 3,000/- has been ordered. Hence, this Court may dismiss the petition. 4. As regards the exercise of power by the learned Sessions Judge contrary to the evidence on record is concerned, no material is shown to this Court for supporting the contention that the order is perverse to the record. However, it does appear from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that the prayer for enhancement of the maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., was up to Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, it could be said that the demand for maintenance by respondent No. 1 was for Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is true that the demand made by the party to the proceedings may not totally control the jurisdiction of the Court on the aspects of quantification of the amount of maintenance. However, in normal circumstances, the power may be exercised by the Court to the extent for which the demand is made. The reason being that the other party to the proceedings is put to the notice that the demand of the maintenance is of a particular amount and it has to meet with the said demand. If the demand is of Rs. 2,000/- per month, the defence of the husband would also be limited thereto. The reason being that the other party to the proceedings is put to the notice that the demand of the maintenance is of a particular amount and it has to meet with the said demand. If the demand is of Rs. 2,000/- per month, the defence of the husband would also be limited thereto. Thereafter, even if the Court has to consider the matter for considering the quantum of maintenance higher than what is not prayed in the application, opportunity is required to be given to the husband for satisfying that such would not be a reasonable maintenance and if such an opportunity is not given, the order could be said to be in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is an admitted position that in the present case the demand was for Rs. 2,000/- per month. At no point of time the petitioner was put to the notice that the Court is to consider the maintenance higher than the demand made in the application, nor any evidence was permitted to be led by the petitioner on the said aspects. Therefore, under these circumstances, it was not proper for the learned Sessions Judge to award the maintenance by allowing the revision exceeding the amount, which was prayed before the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, such can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record attracting the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Revision Application No. 263 of 2006 is quashed and set aside only to the extent of awarding the maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- more than the amount prayed of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Hence, the effect would be that the petitioner would be required to pay the maintenance to respondent No. 1 at Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date on which the order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 263 of 2006. As pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner is said to have deposited the amount at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month, the petitioner would be required to pay the difference to the respondent No. 1 wife within a period of three months in three instalments of 33% for the first two months and the last will be of 34%. 6. 1,200/- per month, the petitioner would be required to pay the difference to the respondent No. 1 wife within a period of three months in three instalments of 33% for the first two months and the last will be of 34%. 6. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule partly made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.