JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the Family Judge, Udaipur, whereby learned Judge has accepted the application filed under Section 127 (2) Cr.P.C. by the respondent-husband, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. Since, both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that vide order dated 7.5.2005, this Court had issued a notice to the respondent-husband. According to the registry, the notice was duly served on the respondent on 1.4.2010. However, despite the service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, this Court have no option but to proceed ex-parte against him. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Smt. Vimla was married to the respondent-husband, Hemraj. However, after the marriage certain disputes arose between them. They parted their ways. Since, Smt. Vimla was unable to look after herself, and her daughter, Meenaxi, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Court. Vide order dated 30.11.1996, the learned Court had directed the respondent-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to Smt. Vimla, and to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- for Meenaxi. Thus, to pay a maintenance of Rs. 550/- in toto. 4. Subsequently, both petitioner Smt. Vimla and respondent Hemraj moved two different applications before the learned Court: while Smt. Vimla filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. praying for enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 550/- to Rs. 1,000/-, the respondent moved an application under Section 127 (2) Cr.P.C. praying that maintenance being paid to Smt. Vimla should be stopped forthwith. In order to buttress their respective applications, each examined two witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Court passed a common order dated 7.4.2005. The learned Court accepted the application filed by the respondent-husband and directed that maintenance of Rs. 350/- being paid to Smt. Viinla should be stopped forthwith. Moreover, he rejected the application filed by Smt. Vimla for enhancement. Hence, both these petitions before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Court has erred in partly accepting the veracity of testimony of Pratap Singh DW-2. 350/- being paid to Smt. Viinla should be stopped forthwith. Moreover, he rejected the application filed by Smt. Vimla for enhancement. Hence, both these petitions before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Court has erred in partly accepting the veracity of testimony of Pratap Singh DW-2. Learned Family Court has relied on the testimony of Pratap Singh DW-2, to conclude that Smt. Vimla is earning sufficient amount. According to Pratap Singh, she was earning between Rs. 1200-1500/- per month. However, it has ignored part of his testimony wherein he had claimed that the monthly expenditure of Smt. Vimla's household is of Rs. 3,000-3,500/-. While the learned Judge has accepted his testimony with regard to Smt. Vimla's income, he has over-looked the testimony with regard to the monthly expenditure. Thus, the learned Judge has committed an illegality and perversity in the impugned order dated 7.4.2005. Moreover, considering the fact that since, 1996 the prices have arisen, the learned Judge ought to have enhanced the maintenance amount, rather than enhanced stopping it in toto. He has further contended that fact that inflation has increased from 1996 even if Vimla were earning Rs. 1200 to 1500/- per month, the said amount is insufficient for her to survive, along with two children. Thus, the learned counsel has prayed that the maintenance should be enhanced. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 7. Pratap Singh (DW-2) states that Smt. Vimla has two children, namely Anjali aged 10 years and Meenaxi aged 2 years; he further states that Smt. Vimla earns about Rs. 1200-1500/- He further informs the Court that monthly expenditure of Smt.Vimla's household is about Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month. His testimony has not been demolished during the cross-examination. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have accepted the testimony in totality, rather than accepting it in piecemeal. 8. Even if, Smt. Vimla were earning Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1,500/- it would not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his wife. Moreover, Smt. Vimla cannot be saddled with the responsibility to look after her children. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in stopping the maintenance being paid to Smt. Vimla and in dismissing the application for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 9. 1200/- to Rs. 1,500/- it would not absolve the husband of his responsibility to maintain his wife. Moreover, Smt. Vimla cannot be saddled with the responsibility to look after her children. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in stopping the maintenance being paid to Smt. Vimla and in dismissing the application for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court has no setting aside the order dated 7.4.2005. This Court further directs the respondent to pay a maintenance to Smt. Vimla per month. It is further clarified that amount Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid from the date of the order of family Court i.e. 7.4.2005. The arrears of the amount shall be paid in three equal installments within one year. It is further clarified that in case Smt. Vimla is of the opinion that maintenance amount is too little, she would be at liberty to approach the learned family Court for enhancement of the said amount. With these directs, both the petitions are, hereby, allowed.Petitions allowed. *******