ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has approached this court for challenging the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner, whereby the Family Court allowed the application preferred by the respondent Smt. Ganga Devi under Section 127 CrPC and enhanced the maintenance awarded to her vide order dated 29.01.2003 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to a sum of Rs.2500/- per month from the date of submission of the application. 3. It is relevant to mention here that the respondent was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner by the order dated 29.01.2003, which has attained finality as the same was never challenged. Because of the rising costs, the respondent felt constrained to maintain herself by the meager amount of Rs.500/- per month and thus, she moved an application dated 07.12.2010 under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance awarded. The matter was transferred to the Family Court, Bikaner, from where notice was issued to the petitioner. The Family Court accepted the application filed by the respondent under Section 127 CrPC by the order dated 25.11.2016 and enhanced the maintenance awarded to her from Rs.500/- per month under the earlier order to Rs.2500/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial court did not provide any opportunity of contesting the matter to the petitioner and hence, the impugned order is bad in eye of law. He urges that as a matter of fact, it is the respondent, who has failed to perform her matrimonial obligations, thus, she cannot claim any maintenance from the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Jain and have gone through the impugned order and other material placed on record. Ex facie, so far as the aspect of the entitlement of the respondent to receive the maintenance is concerned, the same is unquestionable because the original order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent on 29.01.2003 has attained finality. The respondent filed the questioned application under Section 127 CrPC claiming enhancement on the ground that the cost of living has gone up significantly in the last about seven years. The respondent filed the questioned application under Section 127 CrPC claiming enhancement on the ground that the cost of living has gone up significantly in the last about seven years. The notices of the application were served on the petitioner and he was given repeated opportunities by the Family Court to submit his reply to the application, but he failed to do so. On this, his reply was closed on 07.12.2015. The petitioner appears not to have challenged the said order closing his reply, which has become final. The respondent as well as the petitioner were examined in evidence before the Family Court and thus, it is fallacious to claim that the petitioner was not provided opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings. Even after recording of evidence, the Family Court fixed three dates for advancing arguments, but the petitioner failed to appear and hence, ex parte arguments of the respondent were heard. It cannot be disputed that the cost of living has gone up significantly since the year 2003. The meager amount of Rs.500/- per month, which had been awarded to the respondent in the year 2003 was totally unjustified and inappropriate. Thus, the Family Court was perfectly justified in enhancing the maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.2500/- per month. 6. In this background, I find no justification so as to interfere in the well-reasoned order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner in the proceedings under Section 127 CrPC. The impugned order is ex facie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference therein. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition is dismissed.