ORDER 1. This application filed under section 482 CrPC is directed against order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Revision No.67/2014 dated 11.11.2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the amount of maintenance awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.174/2011 dated 19.3.2014, from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- for respondent No.1 and from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- for respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that respondent No.1 was married to the present applicant on 2.12.2008 as per Hindu customs and rites at Dewas. A dispute arose between the couple. There was allegations that the present applicant used to consume of liquor and in intoxicated condition, he used to beat the respondent No.1. He had illicit relationship with many women and he was demanding one lac rupees by way of additional dowry. On 6.5.2011, the respondent No.1 was driven out of her matrimonial house after beating her severely by the present applicant and his family members. Thereafter, the filed an application under section 125 IPC claiming thereby payment of maintenance amoujnt for herself and her daughter/respondent No.2. The present applicant filed a reply and denied all the allegations in the application filed by the respondent No.1 and after taking evidence of both the parties allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- for respondent No.l and Rs.500/- for respondent No.2. 3. Against this order a revision was filed and after hearing the revision by the impugned order, the learned 3rd “Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the amount as aforesaid. 4. Aggrieved by this order, this application is filed invoking extra ordinay jurisdiction conferred on this Court under section 482 CrPC. The impugned order is challenged mainly on quantum of the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned revisional Court. The grounds for challenge taken by the applicant, inter alia, are that actual income of the applicant has not been proved by the respondent, in such a situation enhancing the amount of maintenance, the learned revisional Court taken into consideration the escalation in cost of living. The grounds for challenge taken by the applicant, inter alia, are that actual income of the applicant has not been proved by the respondent, in such a situation enhancing the amount of maintenance, the learned revisional Court taken into consideration the escalation in cost of living. According to the applicant, cost of living did not increase so much after passing of the order by Judicial Magistrate First Class on 19.3.2014 and on such ground, it is prayed that the amount of maintenance enhanced by the revisional Court should be reduced and the amount as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate be restored. 5. I have gone through the relevant portion of the impugned order, the learned Judicial Court observed that in the revision application, the present applicant was shown as an agriculturist and also earning income from animal husbandry. However, in the original application under section 125 IPC, it was not mentioned that he is an agriculturist and earns income from animal husbandry. Though, it is said that he owns a house but however in cross-examination he is stated that he lives with his maternal aunt and uncle. No documentary evidence is produced by the respondent No.1 before the learned Magistrate, however, there was no rebuttal of oral evidence produced by the applicant before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned revisional Court observed that due to inflation maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- for respondent No.2 is on lower side and then the learned revisional Court proceeded to enhanced the amount. 6. After going through the record of the lower Court, it is apparent that no documentary evidence is produced either by the respondent No.1 who was applicant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class nor any document is filed by the respondent No.2. He also admitted that he is working with the State Bank as banking agent and receives commission for opening of new accounts, however, no statement of account has been filed by him. Taking all these factors into consideration, it is apparent that the learned revisional Court has not erred in enhancing maintenance allowance by a total amount of Rs.1,500/- and in this view of the matter, I find that this application has no force and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 7. Record of the lower Court be returned back.