JUDGMENT Heard. By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The applicant is the wife of the respondent. She was awarded maintenance @ Rs.700/- p.m. by the Family Court at Aurangabad. Later on, on her application made under the provisions of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Court enhanced the same to Rs.900/- p.m. by an order dated 16.7.2008. The applicant once again applied to the Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount by an application bearing No.102/2010, which was rejected by the Family Court by an order dated 5.6.2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court by filing present Criminal Revision Application. 3. Ordinarily, as orders passed under section 125 of the Code and under section 127 of the Code do not decide the civil rights of the parties, finally, this Court would not interfere with such orders in revisional jurisdiction. However, when it would appear that the relevant aspects are kept out of consideration by the Family Court or that, it has acted on irrelevant considerations, then the revisional jurisdiction, which is wide, would need to be exercised. 4. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order passed by the Family Court is not proper or legal. He submitted that the application was made on the ground that, due to inflation, the cost of living had considerably increased and that, the applicant was required to incur much more expenditure than she was required to incur when the initial order of maintenance and first enhancement thereof was passed by the Family Court. He also submitted that the respondent was getting a net salary of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. 5. The respondent had opposed the application by filing a statement in writing before the Family Court. He had denied that he was getting a net salary of Rs.20,000/- p.m. He, however, did not mention as to how much salary he was getting. 6. Since in the course of arguments the learned counsel for respondent did not seriously object for remanding of the matter back to the Family Court, I do not intend to discuss the order passed by the Family Court in details. 6. Since in the course of arguments the learned counsel for respondent did not seriously object for remanding of the matter back to the Family Court, I do not intend to discuss the order passed by the Family Court in details. It however needs to be observed that the Family Court focused mainly on the truth of the claim of the applicant that she is required to pay house rent @ Rs.1200/- p.m., and perhaps, therefore, did not take into consideration the other aspects of the matter. The Family Court also observed that the applicant had failed to bring salary certificate of the respondent on record. This view of the Family Court is not in accordance with law. It is one of the cardinal principles of the rules of evidence that all evidence is to be appreciated by keeping in mind the means available to a party to establish a fact asserted by him/her, or to refute a fact asserted by his/her adversary. In this case, the applicant had stated on oath that the respondent was getting a net salary of Rs.20,000/- p.m. and it was quite easy for the respondent to refute this fact by producing his salary certificate on record. While appreciating the evidence in that regard, the fact that the respondent had easy and assured means to refute the claim, but he did not attempt to do so, was required to be taken into consideration. 7. The observations of the Family Court that the rise in the prices of essential commodities was for both the parties and not for the applicant alone, also cannot be appreciated. That, burden of rise in the prices of essential commodities falls on both the parties cannot be a ground to refuse to enhance the maintenance, as increase in the rise of prices would ordinarily lead to increase in the salary or income of the respondent. Therefore, if the amount which a husband was earlier paying to his wife as and by way of maintenance is not increased in proportion to the husband's increased income on account of rise in the cost of living, then, it would in effect, amount to reducing the amount of maintenance. 8. In my opinion, the Family Court has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 8. In my opinion, the Family Court has not considered the matter in proper perspective. However, for want of sufficient material on record, it would not be possible for this Court to decide whether the amount of maintenance should be increased and if so, how much should be the enhancement. The matter is, therefore, required to be remanded back to the Family Court for a fresh consideration, for which, as aforesaid the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 9. One contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent at the conclusion of the hearing needs to be mentioned herein. He submitted that considering the place of residence of the applicant and respondent, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and that the application for enhancement of the maintenance amount would lie before the learned Magistrate at Khultabad. He, however, does not dispute that original order awarding the maintenance was passed by the Family Court and even the order enhancing the same, as was done earlier, was passed by the Family Court itself. Nevertheless, it is made clear that in case he raises the issue of jurisdiction of the Family Court, the Family Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. In the ultimate analysis, the impugned order needs to be set aside. 11. The revision application is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court for a fresh consideration of the application for enhancement of the maintenance, as made by the applicant. The learned Judge of the Family Court, if she thinks it fit, may call upon the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective contentions, if so desired by them. The learned Judge shall expedite the hearing of the application and dispose it of, in any case, within a period of TWO MONTHS from the date of receipt of order of this court. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 23.9.2013. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. 12. Revision application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.