JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. These Revision Petitions are disposed of by way of a common judgment, as common questions of law and fact are involved. 2. Smt. Kiran Bala (petitioner in Cr.R No.251 of 2012), herein after referred to as the wife, filed a petition for maintenance, under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against Shri Sanjeev Rattan (petitioner in CRMMO No.181 of 2012), herein after referred to as the husband. 3. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties as also the respective contentions raised at the bar, allowed the petition and fixed monthly maintenance in favour of the wife at a sum of Rs. 6,000/-, in terms of judgment dated 28.9.2011, passed in Petition No.5 of 2008, tilted as Kiran Bala v. Sanjeev Rattan. Aggrieved thereof, husband filed revision petition, which stands partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh, in terms of judgment dated 14.9.2012, passed in Criminal Revision No.9-X/2011, titled as Sanjeev Rattan v. Kiran Bala. Amount of maintenance stands reduced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, the present petitions filed by both the wife and the husband. 4. During the pendency of the present petitions, an endeavour was made by the Court to have the matter amicably resolved. In this regard, Shri Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, present in the Court, was requested to sit with the parties to work out a settlement, not only with regard to the issue in question but all the problems pertaining to the matrimonial life. For certain religious reasons, wife does not want to part company with her husband. Hence, the efforts in that regard failed. Efforts made by Shri Maniktala are highly appreciable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that ground for interference is made out in the petition filed by the wife. 6. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 4.5.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs. No child is born from the wedlock. In support of her petition, wife Smt. Kiran Bala examined three witnesses, i.e. herself (PW-1), her brother Shri Anil Kumar (PW-2) and an independent witness Shri Bhajan Singh (PW-3). In support of his case, husband Shri Sanjeev Rattan has examined himself (RW-1) and one independent witness Shri Pritam Singh (RW-1). 7. No child is born from the wedlock. In support of her petition, wife Smt. Kiran Bala examined three witnesses, i.e. herself (PW-1), her brother Shri Anil Kumar (PW-2) and an independent witness Shri Bhajan Singh (PW-3). In support of his case, husband Shri Sanjeev Rattan has examined himself (RW-1) and one independent witness Shri Pritam Singh (RW-1). 7. It is quite apparent that perhaps the marriage cannot work. It is also a proven fact that the wife is living away from the company of her husband. She is residing in her parental house. In my considered view, it cannot be said based on the evidence placed on record, that the wife is living away from the company of her husband willfully. Wife has registered a criminal case against her husband under the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also seen that since October, 2007 when the parties parted company, reasons attributed to the husband, there is no endeavour on his part to bring back his wife to the matrimonial fold. 8. Thus, wifes entitlement for maintenance in law stands established on record. 9. To determine the quantum of maintenance, through the respective evidence of Shri Bhajan Singh (PW-3) and Shri Pritam Singh (RW-1), it stands established that both the wife and the husband were earning till some point in time. Wife was working as a teacher in Gurukul Public School, Pucca Paroh. But, now she stands relieved with effect from December, 2009. At the time of her employment, her salary was Rs. 4,800/- per month. On the other hand, it stands established, beyond reasonable doubt, that for the year 2011, husband has had earnings of Rs. 11,68,985/-, but then this included the component of payment of arrears on account of revision in the pay-scale. His monthly income is only of Rs. 40,000/-. He is working as a Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation. 10. It is seen that the lower Appellate Court has not assigned any reason for reducing the amount of maintenance as granted by the trial Court from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The fact that the wife is an educated lady and had at some point in time taught in a local school can in no manner be taken against her for the purpose of counting her capacity to earn. 6,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The fact that the wife is an educated lady and had at some point in time taught in a local school can in no manner be taken against her for the purpose of counting her capacity to earn. There is no conclusive evidence to establish that she has refused any job, which in any event is difficult to find these days, more so at a place where she is staying now. 11. On the other hand, it has come on record that the husband has no other liability. His father is a retired senior Government Officer. His sisters are married and there is none, except for the wife, to be maintained. As such, in my considered view, the lower Appellate Court erred in reducing the amount of maintenance, as awarded by the trial Court in favour of the wife. That part of the order is set aside. A sum of Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the trial Court, in favour of the wife as against the husband was absolutely justified in law and equity. 12. Thus, both the petitions are disposed of with the direction that the husband shall pay the amount of arrears, if any, to the wife at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and continue to pay the same, in terms of the judgment passed by the trial Court. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.