JUDGMENT : 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.07.2018, passed in Maintenance Case No.143 of 2014, by the court of Principal Judge Family Court, Bokaro, whereby the O.P. No.2 has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/-to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner no.2. 2. It transpires from the record that O.P. No.2 is represented through the counsel but on repeated call none has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2. It is manifestly clear that previously this case was listed on 14.06.2019 and also on that date none had appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2. With a view to give one more opportunity to O.P. No.2, the matter was posted for today, with the direction that, if O.P. No.2 fails to appear then necessary orders shall be passed as per the materials available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that as on February 2017 the gross salary of O.P. No.2 was Rs.46,149.51/-. It is submitted that the supplementary affidavit has been filed containing the salary slip of O.P. No.2 for the month of November 2018, which reveals that the gross salary of O.P. No.2, is Rs.51,441.65/-. It is submitted that the deductions from the salary of O.P. No.2 has been made as premium paid towards LIC policy, society loan and society Membership, VPF and Provident Fund. It is submitted that the aforesaid deductions are not the expenses incurred by O.P. No.2. It is argued that taking into account the present salary the maintenance granted is meagre and the same should have been enhanced by the court below. 4. Heard. If any person having sufficient means but refuses to maintain his wife then she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to, at the place of her husband. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions observed that the wife should be entitled to maintain herself as per the status, she would have enjoyed while living with her husband. The maintenance amount should not be either luxurious or penurious. While granting for maintenance to the spouse or dependent the income of applicant is relevant in addition to the fact and circumstances of the case. In the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. The maintenance amount should not be either luxurious or penurious. While granting for maintenance to the spouse or dependent the income of applicant is relevant in addition to the fact and circumstances of the case. In the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 , the Hon'ble Apex court observed that no fix formula can be laid down for fixing the quantum of maintenance, which has to depend, on the attending facts and circumstances of each case. 5. Perused the impugned order and the salary statement of O.P. No.2, at Annexure-2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is evident that the O.P. No.2 has a gross salary of Rs.51,441.65/-and after deductions his take home salary is Rs.26,437/-. The deductions made under various heads are not expenses but are savings made by O.P. No.2. 6. Thus in the surrounding circumstances the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/-and Rs.2,000/-respectively does not appear to be just and proper. Therefore, taking into account the salary drawn by O.P. No.2, it will be just and proper to direct O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.9,000/- (nine thousand) to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) to petitioner no.2 respectively. The order dated 26.07.2018 of the Principal Judge Family Court, Bokaro, is, hereby, modified to that extent. 7. Let a copy of this order be served upon the Managing Director of Bokaro Steel Plant, for deduction of the maintenance amount of Rs.14,000/-from the salary of the O.P. No.2, from the date of receipt and production of this order. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited in the account of petitioner no.1. 8. In the result the revision stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.