ORDER 1. Initially, the revision petitioners herein (Crl. R.C. No. 1490 of 2011) have filed maintenance case in M.C. No. 3 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirupattur, Vellore District, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., stating that the 1st petitioner namely Thendral Sampath wife of Sampath, married the respondent on 2.9.1990 and gave birth to two male children and one female child out of wedlock. Due to difference of opinion, the wife of the respondent herein left the matrimonial home along with the three minor children on 14.7.2003. Thereafter, the above maintenance case has been filed and maintenance of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for the 1st petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- to each of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and Rs. 1,500/- for the 4th petitioner was claimed against the respondent. It was stated that the respondent is working in Southern Railway as Ticket Collector and earning considerable income. Besides this, he also gets multiple income by running Video coverage and Cable TV operation. 2. The respondent/husband had filed counter statement and resisted the maintenance case on various grounds stating that he is getting a sum of Rs. 3,420/- after statutory deductions of his salary. The averments in the claim that he was running Video coverage and Cable TV operation was not admitted. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues and after recording evidence of both sides and on scrutinising the exhibits marked by them, directed the respondent herein/husband to pay a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs. 1,100/- to the 2nd petitioner namely Minor Iniyan; Rs. 900/- to the Minor daughter Kavinila; Rs. 500/- to the minor son namely Kathiravan and rejected the maintenance claim of the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent herein. The said order has been passed on 1.4.2005, in M.C. No. 3 of 2004. 3. Subsequently, the children of the respondent herein have filed C.M.P. No. 2947 of 2006, in M.C. No. 3 of 2004, for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the trial Court had directed the respondent to pay an additional maintenance of a sum of Rs. 400/- to the 1st petitioner/minor son, Rs. 200/- to the 2nd petitioner/minor daughter and Rs. 150/- to the 3rd petitioner/minor son. In total, the trial Court awarded additional maintenance of a sum of Rs. 750/- per month. Accordingly, the trial Court had directed the respondent to pay an additional maintenance of a sum of Rs. 400/- to the 1st petitioner/minor son, Rs. 200/- to the 2nd petitioner/minor daughter and Rs. 150/- to the 3rd petitioner/minor son. In total, the trial Court awarded additional maintenance of a sum of Rs. 750/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed another CMP in C.M.P. No. 1033 of 2010 and claimed monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the 1st petitioner, Rs. 7,500/- to the 2nd petitioner and Rs. 7,000/- to the 3rd petitioner, against their father/the respondent herein. 4. The respondent had filed counter statement stating that his net income after statutory deductions is meagre. After considering the averments made by both sides and after hearing arguments of the counsel on both sides, the trial Court directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the 2nd minor daughter and Rs. 200/- for her educational expenses; Rs. 5,000/- to the 3rd minor son and Rs. 140/- for his educational expenses. 5. Not being satisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the petitioners have filed the above revision in Crl. R.C. No. 1490 of 2011, seeking enhanced maintenance of a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively to the minor daughter Kavinila and minor son Kathiravan. 6. Aggrieved by the said impugned order passed in C.M.P. No. 1033 of 2010, dated 28.10.2010, the father of the petitioners has filed Crl. R.C. No. 250 of 2011, to set aside the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner/father argued that the petitioner has been paying the monthly maintenance regularly from the year 2004 and subsequently the maintenance has been increased from time to time. The petitioner is working in the Railways and getting a sum of Rs. 29,401/- as net salary. He has to maintain his aged mother by way of providing physical help through servant maid, take care of medical expenses, food, clothes and accommodation. Further, the payments for G.P.F. and other statutory loans like housing loan, bank loan have to be paid every month by the petitioner. Further, the 1st son has attained the age of a major and as such he is not entitled to receive any monthly maintenance to the 3rd and 4th petitioners amounting to a sum of Rs. 10,340/- in total. Further, the 1st son has attained the age of a major and as such he is not entitled to receive any monthly maintenance to the 3rd and 4th petitioners amounting to a sum of Rs. 10,340/- in total. The wife of the petitioner is also an earning member and capable person to take care of the children, who are under her custody. The highly competent counsel further submits that the Tribunal erroneously calculated the expenditure of the minor children for uniform, school fees, admission fees which are yearly ones and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 140/- respectively to the petitioners in addition to the monthly maintenance paid which is not appropriate. Further, this order is out of the prayer of the petitioners. As such, the impugned order in C.M.P. No. 1033 of 2010 in M.C. No. 3 of 2004 dated 28.10.2010 is not found to be fit for operation. 7. The highly competent counsel for the respondents/minor children submits that the 1st petitioner namely Iniyan has attained the age of a major and therefore the respondent had been discharged from his liability to pay the maintenance. As such, the respondent at present, has to pay maintenance only to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. As he is financially comfortable, he is capable to pay the enhanced maintenance ordered. The expenditure involved for taking extra care of the 2nd petitioner/minor daughter is high. Further, both the petitioners have to be provided with good education, dress, food, accommodation, transport, entertainment, communication facilities and other amenities. Therefore, the maintenance amount of a sum of Rs. 5,200/- and Rs. 5,140/- granted to each of the petitioners respectively is not adequate, as the cost of living index has gone up. Besides the petitioners are studying at a reputed school and staying in a big town. Now, the respondent is free from all liabilities. After the 6th pay commission, the respondent is presently getting around Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay adequate monthly maintenance for the welfare of the children of the respondent for good education and growth. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to enhance the monthly maintenance to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. 8. After the 6th pay commission, the respondent is presently getting around Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay adequate monthly maintenance for the welfare of the children of the respondent for good education and growth. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to enhance the monthly maintenance to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. 8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court is of the view that (1) The 1st petitioner namely Iniyan has attained the age of a major. As such the respondent is not liable to pay monthly maintenance, being paid by him earlier. As such, he has been discharged from a part of his liability. (2) The respondent had drawn a sum of Rs. 32,151/- as his gross salary for the relevant period of October 2010. Now, the respondents salary would have increased proportionately. (3) The 2nd and 3rd petitioner are pursuing higher studies and therefore their expenditure would have also increased in all aspects namely dress, food, educational expenses, entertainment, communication, accommodation and other amenities. Besides this, the cost of living index has also shot up. 9. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance the monthly maintenance to the 2nd petitioner from Rs. 5,200/- to Rs. 6,500/- and the monthly maintenance of the 3rd petitioner from Rs. 5,140/- to Rs. 6,500/-, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This modified monthly maintenance ordered by this Court, has to be paid with effect from April 2012. This Court directs the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance as per this Court’s order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, by way of depositing the said amount, before the trial Court. This Court further gives an option to the respondent to open a bank account in the name of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners separately and remit the monthly maintenance, as ordered by this Court, through the bank, as it would be more convenient to both parties. 10. In the result, the above Crl. R.C. No. 250 of 2011 is dismissed and Crl. R.C. No. 1490 of 2011 is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the above Crl. R.C. No. 250 of 2011 is dismissed and Crl. R.C. No. 1490 of 2011 is partly allowed. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P. No. 1033 of 2010 in M.C. No. 3 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupattur, dated 28.10.2010 is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Revision partly allowed. Revision dismissed.