ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the CrPC r/w section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed being aggrieved with the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.91/2014 on 31.7.2014, whereby the order passed in miscellaneous Judicial Case No.34/2000 on 18.4.2001 granting maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the applicant has been set aside. 2. Facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that applicant has filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance allowance. It is stated that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with non-applicant/Heeralal on 12.11.1996. Applicant gave birth to son/Ashish and daughter/Tanya out of the said wedlock. It is further stated that non-applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of his deceased brother. On account of it, he used to ill treat the applicant. In the intervening night of 9-10 April, 1999, husband of the applicant left the applicant. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bhopal. When it was came to the notice of the applicant, she came to Bhopal and it was also come to the knowledge of the applicant that respondent is residing with another woman. On account of it, applicant reached the house of the respondent and saw her husband with another woman. It is further stated that applicant is residing separately with her children since 9.4.1999. She is unable to maintain herself and her children, who are studying in convent school. Respondent has not given a single penny for their maintenance. Hence, prayed that respondent be directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.15,000/- p.m. The respondent/husband denied the allegation of ill treatment and having relationship with another woman. It is stated that applicant is residing in his house, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class have allowed the application and granted maintenance allowance @ Rs.800/- to the applicant, Rs.800/- to son/Ashish and Rs.700/- to daughter/Tanya from 18.4.2001. Being aggrieved, criminal revision was preferred which was allowed and respondent/husband was directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. Respondent/husband has preferred an application under section 127 of the CrPC stating that applicant has been appointed as “Swasthya Karyakarta” vide order dated 18.2.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590. Thus, she is able to maintain herself. Being aggrieved, criminal revision was preferred which was allowed and respondent/husband was directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. Respondent/husband has preferred an application under section 127 of the CrPC stating that applicant has been appointed as “Swasthya Karyakarta” vide order dated 18.2.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590. Thus, she is able to maintain herself. It is further stated that both the children Ashish and Tanya have become major and the applicant is employed. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order granting maintenance. In reply, it was stated that applicant/Susheela is doing Government job. Her son is studying in M.A. and preparing for PSC. Daughter Tanya is studying in B.Sc second year. They are unable to maintain themselves. It is further stated that income of the applicant is not enough to meet the expenses. Respondent/husband has been promoted to the post of Deputy Director and is earning Rs.50-60,000/- p.m. It is prayed that application be dismissed. Learned Family Court has allowed the application holding that wife is in Government job and she is receiving the salary and her children have become major and set aside the order of maintenance. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that amount of Rs.3,000/- was ordered in the year 2001, whereas the impugned order has been passed in the year 2014, therefore, the need of the applicant/wife ought to have been considered in the context of the rupee value in light of the present price index. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that salary of Rs.13,000/- is totally insufficient. Son of the applicant is still studying and preparing for the competitive examination and daughter Tanya is still studying to make good career. It is further submitted that amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. was granted on the application of the wife alone, therefore, the award of maintenance could not have been disturbed solely because her two children have become major. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that wife/Sushila has right to live a decent life at par with the social status of the husband/Hiralal, who is working as a senior class-I officer and earning a salary of more than Rs.70,000/- p.m. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that wife/Sushila has right to live a decent life at par with the social status of the husband/Hiralal, who is working as a senior class-I officer and earning a salary of more than Rs.70,000/- p.m. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not disputed that applicant/wife has joined the Government job after her application of maintenance was allowed and she is earning Rs.13,000/- p.m. The copy of the statement of Hiralal recorded on 20.5.2014 in MJC No.91/2014 reveals that in para-3, he categorically admitted that his gross pay is Rs.70,000/- p.m. He further admitted that he is posted as senior accounts officer since 2013. Order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ratlam in MJC No.34/2000 on 18.4.2001 reveals that application for grant of maintenance was filed by the applicant/wife alone. In the order passed in Criminal Revision No.87/2001 on 21.3.2002, it was held that applicant (wife) is entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as maintenance allowance p.m. from her husband (respondent). 6. Hon'ble apex Court in catena of cases held that wife has right to live a life at par with the social status of her husband and while fixing the maintenance allowance, it should be kept in mind that wife should be in a position to maintain the standard of living consistent with the status of the family. It is true that applicant/wife is working as a “Swasthya Karyakarta” and is earning Rs.13,000/- p.m. However, considering that she is maintaining her children, who are major and still studying, it is very difficult for applicant/wife to maintain herself and her two major children out of her salary of Rs.13,000/- p.m. at par with the status of her husband. 7. It is true that applicant/wife is working as a “Swasthya Karyakarta” and is earning Rs.13,000/- p.m. However, considering that she is maintaining her children, who are major and still studying, it is very difficult for applicant/wife to maintain herself and her two major children out of her salary of Rs.13,000/- p.m. at par with the status of her husband. 7. As noticed above, wife/applicant is entitled to get maintenance to maintain the standard of life in accordance with the status of her husband, who is working as a senior accounts officer and is earning the salary of Rs.70,000/- p.m., considering the fact that price of essential commodities are rising day by day and education of children is very expensive, it is very difficult for anybody to maintain himself and two major children out of the salary of Rs.13,000/- p.m. Meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- has been granted to the applicant/wife in the year 2002. Respondent/husband now a days is earning Rs.70,000/- p.m. while the applicant/wife is earning only Rs.13,000/- p.m. as also maintaining her two major children. These aspects ought to have been considered by the learned Family Court. It seems that learned Family Court has lost sight of the aforesaid facts and committed gross error in setting aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the applicant/wife. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court, impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and is deserves to be set aside. 9. Consequently, impugned order is set aside. The application preferred by the respondent/husband under section 127 of the CrPC is hereby dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the petition (Criminal Revision No.988/2014) stands disposed of.