Judgment : 1. This petition is by the dissatisfied wife against the order dated 22-7-2009 in C. Misc. No. 264 of 2004 on the file of Judge. Family Court, Mysore, granting her enhanced maintenance of Rs.1,400/- p.m. Since there is a delay of 99 days in filing the petition, Misc. Civil No. 1892 of 2010 is filed seeking condonation thereof. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent. In response to notice, respondent has entered appearance through learned Counsel who is also absent. Hence, perused records. 3. Records reveal matrimony between the petitioner and respondent is still subsisting which is not disputed. During subsistence, she claims to have left his company due to his torturous act and on that basis filed petition seeking maintenance in C. Misc. No. 9 of 1996 which was considered on merit and by order dated 22-8-1997, Rs.400/- was granted as maintenance which the respondent-husband appears to have paid regularly. However, in the year 2004, she filed the present petition in C. Misc. No. 264 of 2006 seeking enhancement of maintenance by availing the benefit of Section 127 of Cr. P.C. To sustain such ground, she averred he is a Government employee and his salary has substantially increased; earlier it was Rs.10,000/- but now it is multi-fold. Besides she pleaded health problems and difficulty in maintaining herself due to escalation in the cost of living. 4. In response to notice before the Trial Court, respondent entered appearance and brought out that the petitioner is running a stall in KSRTC bus station at Mysore through which she has regular income; she also owns a tempo which is let out on hire; in all she earns Rs.26,000/- to Rs.30,000/- p.m. 5. Both were put to trial in which they have led evidence. While the petitioner sought maintenance on the basis of increase in the salary of the respondent, he brought out that she has a regular source of income. The learned Trial Judge, considering the material on record, declined to accept the respondent’s contention that the wife is running a stall in KSRTC bus station and runs a tempo, and thus enhanced maintenance to Rs.1400. Still she is not satisfied, and seeks enhancement. 6. On a perusal of the records, it is evidence that the petitioner is not running the alleged stall, but it is in her brother’s name and she only manages it in his absence. Still she is not satisfied, and seeks enhancement. 6. On a perusal of the records, it is evidence that the petitioner is not running the alleged stall, but it is in her brother’s name and she only manages it in his absence. She does not deny she has no income from such business. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge thought it fit to enhance maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,400/-, considering the fact that the respondent is working as a cook in SC/ST hostel drawing take-home salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. The same income was shown in the year 1996 also. In fact, the learned Judge has ignored the fact that while granting maintenance at Rs.400/- by order dated 22-8-1997, the then Trial Judge had taken note of all these factors. Although no new circumstance was made out by her, enhancement was done. 7. The ground urged against the impugned order is cost of living has increased. No doubt it is so, but when it is shown by the respondent that she has other sources of income, the learned Trial Judge should have taken into consideration these facts and then fixed a reasonable amount. I find no merit in the petition. It is rejected at the stage of admission. 8. Besides, there is a delay of 99 days in filing the petition but it is not satisfactorily explained Misc. Civil No. 1892 of 2010 is also rejected.