JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole Petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 14.2.2007 passed by Sri Binay Shankar Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, East Champaran at Motihari, in Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2003/102 of 2006. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 6.3.2003 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari in Case No. M-1 of 1999, corresponding to Trial No. 985 of 2003 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said order, learned Magistrate had directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 400/- per month to Opp. Party No. 2. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to direct the Petitioner, who is husband of Opp. Party No. 2, for maintaining her and to make payment for maintenance. After filing the petition, witnesses were examined and finally by Judgment and order dated 6.3.2003, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition and directed the Petitioner to make payment of Rs. 400/- per month to Opp. Party No. 2. Against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the Petitioner preferred a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2003/102 of 2006, which stood rejected. 3. Aggrieved with both the orders, i.e. order dated 6.3.2003 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V in Cr. Revision, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 19.9.2008, the petition was admitted for hearing and notice was directed to be issued to Opp. Party No. 2. 4. From the record, it appears that no order of stay was passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not in a position to inform the court as to whether during the pendency of this petition, as per direction of the court below, the Petitioner is paying maintenance to Opp. Party No. 2 or not. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has emphasized that the marriage with Petitioner was solemnized about 40-45 years back from the date of filing of the present case. Party No. 2 or not. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has emphasized that the marriage with Petitioner was solemnized about 40-45 years back from the date of filing of the present case. It has further been argued that from the landed property, which was given to the Petitioner, some of the shares was given to Opp. Party No. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate without appreciating the fact that Opp. Party No. 2 was capable to maintain herself had passed the impugned order. In similar manner, as per Dr. Amrendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the revisional court has also passed the order, which is contrary to the facts of the case. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside both the orders. 6. At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 7. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. The record indicates that the Petitioner is a retired Government teacher. The record further indeicates that the Petitioner was also having some landed property. From the deposition as well as the petition for maintenance, it is evident that Opp. Party No. 2 was neglected by the Petitioner and, as such, the learned Magistrate after examining the entire materials on record had rightly passed the impugned order. Learned Sessions Judge on revision rejected the prayer of the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate had directed for payment of Rs. 400/- per month to Opp. Party No. 2 by the Petitioner. The order of maintenance was passed long back in the year 2003. The Court is of the opinion that for maintaining, Opp. Party No. 2 the amount of Rs. 400/- would not be sufficient in the present scenario. The Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced from Rs. 400/- to 800/-. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected with a direction that henceforth, the Petitioner will start paying Rs. 800/- to Opp. Party No. 2. It is further directed that if the Petitioner is not paying the maintenance to Opp. Party No. 2, steps shall be taken to get the amount realized through process of the Court. 9. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected.