JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since, the common questions of facts and law are involved in both these revisions, hence both these revisions are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain the clarity, the facts of Criminal Revision No.135 of 2016 have been taken into consideration. 2. Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2016 has been preferred by the husband-Pramod Kumar Pandey against the order dated 13.04.2016, rendered by learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital Camp Court Haldwani, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 228 of 2013. 3. Criminal Revision No. 171 of 2016 has been filed by the wife-Smt. Gayatri Pandey seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance. 4. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of the revisions are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.06.2011. The revisionist-husband is working as a Scientist in Bombay. 5. Respondent (wife) filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. According to the averments made in the petition, the revisionist has failed to maintain her. She came back to Haldwani on 19.02.2012. She is residing with her parents. The income of the revisionist is more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She has no independent source of income. 6. The revisionist (husband) has admitted in his reply that he is working as Scientist in N.P.C.I.L., Bombay. He has spent a huge amount in the treatment of his first wife, who was suffering from cancer. Thereafter, he has to maintain his ailing mother and daughter from the first wife, who is the student of B.Tech. He has to pay the installments. 7. Learned Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. The respondent has appeared as PW1. According to her, the behaviour of the revisionist towards her was cruel. He left her to Delhi on 18.02.2012. She was residing with her parents. 10. The revisionist has appeared as DW1 before the Trial Court. He has admitted that he gets the net salary of Rs.53,000/- per month. He had spent lot of money in the treatment of his first wife. He was spending Rs.2,50,000/- per year on the education of his daughter born from the first marriage. He is looking after his ailing mother as well. 11. He has admitted that he gets the net salary of Rs.53,000/- per month. He had spent lot of money in the treatment of his first wife. He was spending Rs.2,50,000/- per year on the education of his daughter born from the first marriage. He is looking after his ailing mother as well. 11. The fact of the matter is that learned Trial Court after correct appraisal of the evidence has come to the right conclusion that the net income of the revisionist was Rs. 57,554/- per month. His gross salary is Rs.1,57,583 per month. 12. Respondent-wife is not gainfully employed. She has no independent source of income. Revisionist has not led any evidence that respondent is gainfully employed by imparting tuitions. 13. The revisionist has failed to maintain respondent. It is bounden duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife. He is getting handsome salary. The respondent was forced to live with her parents since 19.02.2012. 14. Learned Trial Court has erred in law by only granting Rs.20,000/- maintenance to the respondent-wife. The Trial Court should have taken into consideration the status of the wife also and means of husband. The husband’s salary is more than Rs.1,57,583/- per month. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is on the conservative side. 15. Accordingly, the revision No.135 of 2016 filed by the husband-Pramod Kumar Pande is dismissed. 16. The revision no.171 of 2016 moved by the wife-Smt. Gayatri Pande (Munni) is allowed. The amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.27,000/- per month (twenty seven thousand only). The arrears shall be paid by the husband w.e.f. date of institution of the petition by the wife before the Trial Court within eight weeks from today.