JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 6.9.2017, the petitioners in Crl .Misc.No.114/2016, on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, have filed this revision petition. 2. The revision petitioners herein filed petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the Family Court, Dharwad, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month each from the respondent. The petitioners have averred in the petition that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 6.6.2003 as per Hindu rituals and customs at Dharwad. The 1st petitioner after her marriage joined the company of the respondent in order to lead marital life and they led their marital life for a short period and during that period the 2nd petitioner was born on 24.3.2004. The 1st petitioner has further stated that at the time of marriage as per the demand made by the respondent and his family members, the petitioners family members had given 60 grams of gold and dowry of Rs. 50,001/-. Being not satisfied by the same, the respondent and his family members started ill-treating petitioner No.1 demanding additional dowry. The respondent is addicted to bad habits like consuming alcohol and smoking. The respondent and his family members intentionally kicked out the petitioners from their house and the respondent has deserted the company of the petitioners. The petitioners without any efficacious and alternative remedy, started living in a rented house at Dharwad by paying monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore the petitioners filed maintenance petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month each. The petitioner No.1 has further stated that the respondent is working as Chief TMC Officer in South Western Railways, Hubballi and getting salary of more than Rs. 45,000/- per month and he is also having his own residential houses at Keshwapur, Hubballi. The mother of the respondent is also getting pension. Therefore the respondent is capable of paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- each to the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners have no source of income for their maintenance. With these averments, the petitioners claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- each per month from the respondent. 3. In response to the notice, respondent appeared before the Family Court and filed his objections. He has admitted that the petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife and that the petitioner No.2 is their daughter. With these averments, the petitioners claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- each per month from the respondent. 3. In response to the notice, respondent appeared before the Family Court and filed his objections. He has admitted that the petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife and that the petitioner No.2 is their daughter. He has denied the allegations made in the petition. He has further alleged that the petitioner No.1 being greedy, started to grab money from him to enjoy life along with her parents at Dharwad. The respondent is working in Railway department on day and night shifts. Due to the mental stress and agony, he has undergone bypass surgery on 21.5.2015. The petitioner No.1 has never been in good terms with him since the date of marriage. Now he is aged about 44 years. He has denied that he demanded and received any dowry and gold ornaments. The petitioner No.1 had previously filed Crl.Misc.No.55/2016 before the Family Court, Dharwad, seeking maintenance and the same was ended with conciliation. He has been paying the school fees of petitioner No.2 as advised by the Court. The petitioner No.1 never cared about his health and other difficulties. Therefore he sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. In order to prove their claim, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 39 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.39. The respondent got examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.21. The learned Judge of the Family Court after hearing both the parties, passed by the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner No.1 during her life time or till her remarriage and awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of the 2nd petitioner till the date of her marriage after she attaining majority, along with costs. 5. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the said order of maintenance have filed this revision petition seeking enhancement in the maintenance amount. The petitioners have contended that the respondent is getting salary of Rs. 49,281/- per month and he is a Central Government employee serving in Railway Department. The Family Court has considered Ex.P.35 house rent agreement which shows that the petitioners are living in a rented house paying a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The petitioners have contended that the respondent is getting salary of Rs. 49,281/- per month and he is a Central Government employee serving in Railway Department. The Family Court has considered Ex.P.35 house rent agreement which shows that the petitioners are living in a rented house paying a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The respondent has also admitted that he has filed a divorce petition at Family Court, Hubballi, which would indicate that he is avoiding the company of the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner is studying in 9th standard and her school fees is Rs. 13,500/- per year and the cost of the books is Rs. 2,014/- and Rs. 269/- respectively. She is going to school by taxi and the petitioner No.1 has to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month. She is also taking tuition class for which the petitioner has to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month. Therefore the revision petitioners have sought for awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month each by enhancing the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondent. 7. Now the short question that arises for consideration of this Court in this revision petition is as to whether the revision petitioners have made out grounds for enhancement of maintenance amount? 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that considering the salary drawn by the respondent, the amount of maintenance claimed by the petitioners is just and reasonable and that the Family Court ought to have awarded the said maintenance to the revision petitioners. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and further submitted that the respondent is also paying the school fees of petitioner No.2 in addition to payment of maintenance amount and therefore the revision petition be dismissed. 10. In pursuance of the order dated 2.11.2018, the respondent has produced his service and salary certificate for the month of February 2019. The same is available in the records. The respondent has not disputed that the petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife and petitioner No.2 is born in their wedlock. It is also not disputed that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing in a rented house separately at Dharwad and they are paying rent of Rs. The same is available in the records. The respondent has not disputed that the petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife and petitioner No.2 is born in their wedlock. It is also not disputed that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing in a rented house separately at Dharwad and they are paying rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month as can be seen from Ex.P.35 rent agreement which was executed in the year 2015. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that now the rent is enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month which is also not disputed by the respondent. It is also admitted by the respondent that he has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Hubballi for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner No.1 and the said case is pending for disposal. The respondent has also not disputed that he owns residential houses at Hubballi. 11. The learned Family Court has come to the conclusion that petitioner No.1 has no source of income for maintenance of herself and petitioner No.2 and further it is observed that respondent is getting salary of Rs. 42,918/- as can be seen from Ex.P.31, the salary certificate for the month of July 2016 and Ex.P.32 the salary certificate for the month of August 2016, according to which the respondent was drawing salary of Rs. 84,989/-. Ex.P.32 is the salary slip for the month of August 2016 in which gross salary of Rs. 84,989/- is shown. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners on the basis of this document submitted that the respondent is drawing so much of salary per month. However the details mentioned in this salary slip goes to show that during the month of August 2016, the respondent received arrears of salary in view of 7th pay commission report to the extent of Rs. 37,672/-. Therefore this salary slip cannot be considered as showing gross salary of Rs. 84,989/-. In view of this submission, this Court directed the respondent to produce the salary certificate for the current year. Accordingly the respondent has produced the salary certificate for the month of February 2019. As per this salary certificate the respondent is getting gross salary of Rs. 56,097/- per month and there are total deductions of Rs. 14,350/-. 13. 84,989/-. In view of this submission, this Court directed the respondent to produce the salary certificate for the current year. Accordingly the respondent has produced the salary certificate for the month of February 2019. As per this salary certificate the respondent is getting gross salary of Rs. 56,097/- per month and there are total deductions of Rs. 14,350/-. 13. The learned Family Court considering the salary certificate for the month of June 2016, held that the respondent is getting salary of Rs. 49,281/- and on the said basis, awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per month, respectively, in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2. 14. The liability of the respondent to pay maintenance is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner No.2 has completed SSLC and now she has to be admitted to PUC first year course as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, which is not disputed by the respondent. It is settled principle of law that maintenance is being awarded in favour of the wife and children at the rate of 1/3rd of the income of the husband. Applying the said principle to the present case, it is just and necessary to award maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2, which constitute nearly 1/3rd of the gross salary of the respondent. In addition to this, the respondent has to be directed to bear the educational expenses of the petitioner No.2 till completion of her education. Therefore the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative and accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is partly allowed. The respondent is hereby directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 till her lifetime or till she gets remarried and to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 till she gets married after attaining the age of majority. Further, the respondent is also directed to bear the educational expenses of petitioner No.2 till completion of her education. The enhanced amount of maintenance shall be paid from the date of this order.