JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No. 372 of 2010, which was pending in Sessions Court, Jalgaon. The revision was filed by respondent against the judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon delivered in Criminal M.A. No. 98 of 2010. The application filed for enhancement of maintenance under section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code was allowed by J.M.F.C. and maintenance was enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per month in favour of each of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent and petitioner No. 2 is unmarried daughter of petitioner No. 1. The Sessions Court has set aside the decision of J.M.F.C., by observing that the amount of salary to the extent of 3500/- was already attached in view of the order made by the Civil Court and the present petitioners were getting atleast Rs.5500/- per month by way of maintenance. The Sessions Court has observed that husband was getting hardly Rs.6850/- as take home salary and so, enhancement was not possible. 3. This Court has carefully gone through the record which includes copies of the proceedings filed for divorce and copies of evidence. The record also includes certificates issued by the institutions, where the petitioner No. 1 was allegedly serving as 'Anganwadi Sevika' and they are to the effect that the institution was not paying anything by way of salary or honorarium to the petitioner No. 1 though for some time she was serving with them. On the other hand, there is the admission of respondent that he was getting around Rs.20,000/- by way of salary at the relevant time. Sixth Pay Commission was not made applicable at that time, but he was getting such salary. 4. The maintenance proceeding was filed in the year 2003 by the petitioners and it was decided in the year 2005. The enhancement proceeding was filed in the year 2010. It is the case of present petitioners that on the date of their petition, present respondent was getting atleast Rs.20,000/- by way of salary, the needs of the present petitioners have increased, petitioner No. 2 was attending college and she needs more amount. The enhancement proceeding was filed in the year 2010. It is the case of present petitioners that on the date of their petition, present respondent was getting atleast Rs.20,000/- by way of salary, the needs of the present petitioners have increased, petitioner No. 2 was attending college and she needs more amount. It is their case that as the prices of essential commodities have increased many times since the year 2005, and so, they require more amount for maintenance. The husband had taken a defence that he was required to pay from his salary the maintenance amount awarded by Civil Court and so, he was not in a position to give more amount. He had contended that the wife was getting atlest Rs.14,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month from maintenance amount and other resources. 5. The judgment and order of Sessions Court shows that much importance was given to circumstance that in execution proceeding filed for recovery of interim alimony granted by the Civil Court, the salary to the extent of Rs.3500/- of the husband was attached. Surprisingly, the Sessions Court has considered the take home salary of the husband as his income, when his gross salary was more than Rs.20,000/-. Only standard deductions can be considered at the time of considering the income of the husband. Further, the submissions made show that the proceeding filed for divorce by the husband was withdrawn by him on 8.8.2007. The revision was decided on 16.4.2010. Further, the maintenance amount awarded in proceeding filed under section 125 of Cr. P.C. can be considered and adjusted as against civil maintenance in view of the provision of section 127(4) of Cr. P.C. This position of law is not considered by the Sessions Court. The certificate issued by educational institution to the effect that it was not paying anything to the wife, is also not considered by the Sessions Court. On the other hand, the reasoning given by the J.M.F.C. for enhancement of maintenance appears to be sound. The prices of essential commodities did increase from the year 2005 to 2010. The daughter must be requiring more amount for educational expenses. Considering the income of the present respondent, the total amount of maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month granted in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, cannot be said to be the amount on higher side and beyond the capacity of the present respondent. The daughter must be requiring more amount for educational expenses. Considering the income of the present respondent, the total amount of maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month granted in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, cannot be said to be the amount on higher side and beyond the capacity of the present respondent. Even after making payment of this amount and after making payment towards income tax and professional tax, the amount of more than Rs.13,000/- to 14,000/- would remain with the present respondent. Thus, the judgment and order of Sessions Court delivered in criminal revision cannot sustain in law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 327 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the judgment and order of learned J.M.F.C., Jalgaon delivered in Criminal M.A. No. 98 of 2010 is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.