JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners Smt.Pratima @ Teena Kunwar, w/o Dalpat Singh and Aditya @ Jyotiraditya s/o Dalpat Singh, both residents of Rajawat Guest House, House No.5, Nagmarg, outside Chandpole, Udaipur at present 51, BG Nagar, Samta Nagar, Bedla, Udaipur against the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners claiming maintenance for themselves. The petitioners are the wife and minor son of respondent No.2, Dalpat Singh respectively. 3. It was averred in the petition that petitioner No.1 Smt.Pratima @ Teena Kunwar and respondent No.2 Dalpat Singh got married on 05.12.2000 and out of the wedlock a son was born to them . It was further averred in the petition that just after few days of marriage, the respondent and his family members started ill-treating, abusing and torturing the petitioner wife with demand of dowry and in the month of January 2005, the petitioner was thrown out of her husband's house, by her husband and family members. Subsequent efforts to settle the matter by3 the family members of the petitioner wife, were all in vain. It was further stated that the respondent husband is an advocate by profession and used to earn Rs. 25000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month and the petitioner wife has no means to maintain herself and her child. On the basis of these averments, it was prayed that a total sum of Rs. 5,500/- be ordered to be paid as maintenance for herself and her minor son. 4. In the reply filed by the respondent No.2-husband, he denied all the averments made in the petition, claiming maintenance, and it was stated that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the separation and with regard to maintenance it was averred that the petitioner wife, has enough resources to maintain herself and her son and as such, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 5. 5. The learned trial court framed four issues and held that the respondent husband has enough means to impart maintenance to the petitioner wife and son and the respondent -husband has wilfully failed to discharge his responsibility to maintain his wife and son. 6. The learned trial court partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioners, by granting Rs. 500/ as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the son. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Udaipur the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge, Family Court , Udaipur vide order dated 18.02.2008 awarded only Rs. 1,000/- as monthly maintenance for petitioner No.1 Smt. Pratima and Rs. 500/- for her son Aditya petitioner No.2. That amount is too meagre and respondent No.2, Dalpat Singh, is an advocate and a practicing lawyer at Sirohi, therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court , Udaipur committed an error in computing the income of respondent No.2. Looking to the status of the present petitioner and the respondent No.2, this amount should be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the learned trial court did not commit any illegality , neither in the computation of the income of the respondent No.2, nor in awarding the monthly maintenance to petitioner No.1 as well as her son Aditya, petitioner No.2. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. 11. Looking to the fact that cost of living is getting more higher in a rapid manner and the amount awarded as maintenance is not only disproportionate to the residuary income of the respondent-husband, but also too meagre to lead a life reasonably. Therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned family court per se is illegal , improper and perverse and I consider it a just and fit case, in which the amount of monthly maintenance should be enhanced and I accordingly award Rs. 2,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance for petitioner No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance for her son, petitioner No. 2. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner is allowed and the monthly maintenance allowance of petitioner No.1 is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance for petitioner No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance for her son, petitioner No. 2. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner is allowed and the monthly maintenance allowance of petitioner No.1 is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month and for her6 son petitioner, No. 2, it is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be payable from the date of presentation of the revision petition in this Court.Revision petition allowed. *******