JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. Criminal revision no. 34 of 2011 has been preferred by the revisionist-husband against the order dated 29.01.2011, passed by learned Judge, Family court, Nainital, in Misc. criminal case no. 54 of 2009, Smt. Haripriya Mawri and another vs Mohan Singh Mawri, whereby learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the date of filing of the application. 2. Criminal revision no. 77 of 2011 has been preferred by the wife against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011, passed by learned Judge, Family court, Nainital, in Misc. criminal case no. 54 of 2009, Smt. Haripriya Mawri and another vs Mohan Singh Mawri, feeling aggrieved with the insufficiency of maintenance awarded to her. 3. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between Mohan Singh Mawri and Smt. Haripriya was solemnized on 15.01.1990 and one male child Khelendra Singh was begotten out of said wedlock on 27.10.1990. After marriage, differences crept in the matrimonial life of the parties. In the month of April 1991, the husband committed maar peet with his wife and ousted her from the house along with the infant. Since the husband was not maintaining the wife and the son properly, the wife was constrained to file application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 04.04.2009, claiming maintenance for herself and his son. It was mentioned by the wife in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the husband is getting salary of Rs.65,000/- per month, therefore, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance be awarded in favour of her and son. 4. Said application was contested by the husband by filing objections denying the averments made in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the wife is living separately from him without any sufficient reason and her behaviour towards him was also cruel. It is also contended that the wife is earning a handsome amount being an agent of Post Office. The breakup of the commission earned by the wife during various financial years was sought by the husband under the Right to Information Act. The details of the same are as under: Financial Year Commission earned 2006-07 102949 2007-08 60820 2008-09 61046 5. The breakup of the commission earned by the wife during various financial years was sought by the husband under the Right to Information Act. The details of the same are as under: Financial Year Commission earned 2006-07 102949 2007-08 60820 2008-09 61046 5. The learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the wife Mrs. Haripriya Mawri from the date of filing of the application, vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2011, which is under challenge in both the aforesaid criminal revisions. 6. On filing the criminal revision by the husband, this Court passed an interim ex-parte order dated 22.02.2011, directing that if the revisionist-husband pays maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month to his wife, recovery in respect of remaining Rs.4,500/- per month shall remain stayed, until further orders. 7. Against the order dated 22.02.2011, the revisionist-husband preferred petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) no.(s) 2745 / 2011, Mohan Singh Mawri vs Haripriya Mawri before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 15.04.2011 requesting the High Court to expedite the hearing of the Revision Petition. 8. A request was made to this Court by Hon’ble Apex Court to decide the criminal revisions expeditiously, but when the matters were listed before learned Judge, the same could not be taken up and remained pending for a long period. It appears that the revisionist-husband also not apprised the Court about the request made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. When the matter came up before this Court and learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife apprised this Court regarding the request made by Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter was immediately taken up for hearing. 9. Earlier in compliance of the request made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the criminal revision was listed on 31.07.2017 before this Court and learned Judge of this Court passed the following order : “Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the revisionist. No representation for the respondent. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the revisionist submits that Special Leave to Appeal no.(s) 014987 / 2017 arising out of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2017 in First Appeal no. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the revisionist. No representation for the respondent. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the revisionist submits that Special Leave to Appeal no.(s) 014987 / 2017 arising out of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2017 in First Appeal no. 06 of 2013 is pending in the Supreme Court. In the said appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed order on 03.07.2017 in which submissions of the parties were recorded that there is possibility of amicable settlement by way of mediation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties are ready for mediation and case be adjourned for two months. Case is adjourned. List after two months.” 10. The order dated 31.07.2017 was challenged by the wife before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl) Diary no.(s) 40987 / 2017, Haripriya Mawri vs Mohan Singh Mawri. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 06.02.2018. However, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the High Court shall expedite the hearing of the matter and decide the main case at an early date preferably within a period of three months from today. 11. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the husband on 29.06.2018 stating therein that the wife is working as an agent of Post Office and has earned handsome commission during different financial years. The details of the commission earned were also given: Financial Year Commission earned 2015-16 170658 2016-17 162624 2017-18 152806 It is also mentioned in the supplementary affidavit that the wife is getting a handsome rental income, but no proof thereof has been filed by the husband. 12. During the course of arguments Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife has placed the pay certificate obtained under the Right to Information Act on 06.04.2018 that the husband is getting the net salary of Rs. 1,05,368/-. Learned counsel for the husband has admitted the fact that the gross salary of the husband is Rs. 1,70,688/-. It is also admitted by learned counsel for the husband that the husband is residing in an accommodation provided by the Kumaon University, being a Professor. 13. Learned Judge, Family Court, awarded an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the wife vide order dated 29.01.2011. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the income of the husband has increased by every passing year. 13. Learned Judge, Family Court, awarded an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the wife vide order dated 29.01.2011. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the income of the husband has increased by every passing year. It is true that the wife is also earning by way of receiving commission on recurring deposits from the Post Office, but her income is uncertain and kept on increasing and decreasing during respective financial year. If I took the average annual income of the wife, it comes approximately to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only). Her average annual income is Rs. 1,00,000/- and she has to maintain herself as also his son. Though the son is major, but he is unemployed. 14. From the perusal of the pay slip of the husband produced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife it is evident that the husband is getting net salary of Rs. 1,05,368/- per month after deduction of GPF, CPF, GIS, LIC and the income tax from gross income. In contrast, the net income of the wife is only Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. As such, her monthly income comes to nearly Rs. 8,000/- per month. From said income, the wife has to maintain herself and her son also. Though the son is educated, but he is still unemployed. It is settled proposition of law that wife has a right to live with dignity and befitting to the status of her husband. Admittedly, the husband is getting more than Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) per month as salary after deductions, whereas the wife is only earning Rs.8,000/- per month and she has to maintain herself and her unemployed son also. 15. Though an adult son cannot claim maintenance from his parents as a matter of right, but in the Indian culture we cannot forget the fact that the parents have to maintain their adult child till he gets suitable employment and it is a social duty casts upon the parents to maintain the adult child. This Indian culture and custom cannot be compared with the European culture and custom. 16. On filing an application by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the year 2009, only an amount of Rs. This Indian culture and custom cannot be compared with the European culture and custom. 16. On filing an application by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the year 2009, only an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month was paid to her as monthly maintenance, but the fact remains that it was the duty of the husband to maintain his wife as per his own status, but the husband has failed to maintain his wife and son, as per his own status. Since maintenance was claimed by the wife for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month in her application dated 04.04.2009, the learned Judge, Family Court has recorded a finding that the net salary of the husband at that point of time was Rs. 49,580/- per month, whereas the salary slip filed on record (paper no. 61B/2) depicts that the salary of husband was Rs. 84,900/-per month at that time. However, in view of this court, the learned Judge, Family Court without taking note of the fact that the wife has a right to live as per the status of her husband, in a cursory manner, has awarded an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the wife. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order, as also the law cited on behalf of wife rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, decided in Civil Appeal No.5369 of 2017 (arising out of SLP(C) No.34653 of 2016), vide judgment and order dated 19.04.2017, in the opinion of this Court, since it is an admitted case that the husband is receiving net salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) per month at present and this fact also cannot be ignored that the amount of monthly maintenance must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay the same, therefore, it would be justified if the maintenance amount payable to the wife be enhanced in the changed scenario to meet the ends of justice. 18. 18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the matter is pending since 2011 and despite the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter could not be decided expeditiously and aforesaid revisions remained pending for almost seven years, the wife cannot be penalized for the delay in deciding the criminal revisions and also considering the fact that the salary of husband has also increased in the meantime, in order to put an end to the litigation between the parties, this Court is of the view that monthly maintenance should be enhanced as per the admitted gross salary of Rs.1,70,000/- per month received by the respondent-husband at present. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital is modified to the extent that the wife Haripriya Mawri shall be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of filing the application till the date of filing the criminal revision before this Court against the impugned judgment. The amount already paid by the respondent-husband to the revisionist-wife pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court shall be adjusted and the remaining amount shall be paid within six months from today. 20. Considering the fact that the aforesaid criminal revisions are pending since 2011 and the net income of the respondent-husband is Rs. 1,05,368/- per month, in view of this Court, the maintenance deserves to be increased upto Rs.45,000/- per month in favour of the revisionist-wife so that she may maintain herself according to the status of her husband. The respondent-husband shall pay maintenance to the revisionist-wife at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per month from the date of filing of criminal revision by the wife, i.e., 21.04.2011. Maintenance amount shall be paid by the husband to the wife by 7th day of every month. 21. The criminal revision no. 77 of 2011, filed by the revisionist-wife is, accordingly, allowed. 22. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the revisionist-husband, being Criminal Revision no. 34 of 2011 is hereby dismissed.