JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamsehpur in Misc. Case No. 63 of 2008 by which the enhancement of maintenance has been made from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 750/-, instead of Rs. 2,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2005 in which vide order dated 05.09.2007 the opposite party no. 2 was directed to make payment of Rs. 700/- per month to the petitioner and her daughter. Subsequently in the year 2008, the petitioner had filed an application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.p.C. in which she has claimed that the maintenance amount should be enhanced in view of the price rise of essential commodities apart from the fact that she has to maintain her daughter, who studies in Graduate College, Hazaribagh and whose fees are to be borne by the petitioner. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 29.11.2008 has enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 750/- per month which led the petitioner to prefer the present application. 4. Primary consideration which was made by the learned court below with respect to enhancing the meager amount of Rs. 50/- in favour of the petitioner and her daughter is the fact regarding the proximity of time of filing the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Although, the petitioner has claimed that the opposite party no. 2 is a man of means and has four tempos, but in course of her evidence she has miserably failed to prove the said fact. The learned court below has also taken note of the fact that the monthly fee of Graduate College in which petitioner''s daughter is studying is Rs. 12/- only and since there is not much increase in the price of essential commodities, it has enhanced the monthly maintenance only by Rs. 50/- in favour of the petitioner. 5. The learned court below has also taken note of the fact that the monthly fee of Graduate College in which petitioner''s daughter is studying is Rs. 12/- only and since there is not much increase in the price of essential commodities, it has enhanced the monthly maintenance only by Rs. 50/- in favour of the petitioner. 5. Since a proper consideration has been made to the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while passed the order dated 29.11.2008, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which accordingly stands dismissed.