ORDER 1. Petitioner/husband assails the order dated 3.7.2015 of maintenance allowance passed under section125 of CrPC awarding an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent/wife. 2. This Court while entertaining this petition by interim order dated 21.1.2016, prima facie believing the contention of husband that he is earning only Rs. 5,000/- per month directed that w.e.f. 29.4.2014, the petitioner/husband shall pay maintenance allowance to the wife @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. 3. The facts disclose that after getting marriage on 21.5.2011, husband and wife fell into discord very soon which led to both parting ways, husband filing a suit for restitution of conjugal right under section9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which however dismissed to be followed by husband filing a suit for divorce under section13 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Bhopal. This divorce petition was also dismissed on 23.7.2013, whereafter a fresh petition was filed by husband in 2014 bearing No.115A/2014 awaits adjudication before the Family Court at Bhopal till date. 4. The wife preferred an application under section125 of CrPC contending that she has no source of livelihood except her dependency on her parents and presently undergoing post-graduate studies. Wife further stated that husband despite earning well is failing to discharge his statutory duty to maintain his estranged wife. Thus request under section125 of CrPC is made. This contention is supported by the testimony of father of the wife Gajraj Singh, who has supported his daughter testimony by saying that dowry demand was made by husband on the basis of which the wife was subjected to cruelty mental and physical compelling her to leave her matrimonial home. Advice from elders did not persuade the husband to see reason. Circumstance of such adverse nature was created by the husband that wife had to be forced to leave her matrimonial home and stay with her parents. The wife and her father both have stood the cross-examination conducted by counsel for husband. 5. Per contra, the husband denying contention made under section125 of CrPC testified that wife left matrimonial home on her own volition and that there was no cruelty extended to her. It is also revealed by the husband that he has made all out efforts to reach out for settlement but every time the said proposal was declined by the wife for reason not attributed to husband. It is also revealed by the husband that he has made all out efforts to reach out for settlement but every time the said proposal was declined by the wife for reason not attributed to husband. Besides his own statement, the husband did not produced any other witness. 6. Documentary evidence Ex.P-1 was produced by husband to counter the claim under section125 of CrPC Ex.P-1 was a certificate issued by proprietor of Shraddha Medical Store, the employer of husband certifying that husband was paid monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. However, the said proprietor of the medical shop/employer of husband was not produced and therefore the said certificate could not be proved and thus was rightly discarded by the trial Court. 7. The contention of husband that wife is post-graduate and can very well earn her own living but intentionally is not making efforts and therefore, despite having sufficient means to maintain herself is manufacturing artificial cause to claim maintenance allowance under section125 of CrPC. 8. The learned trial Court has awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the wife by keeping in mind the price index, social and financial status of the rival parties. Despite there being no documentary or oral evidence as regards income of the husband being more than Rs. 6,000/- per month, the trial Court presumed the income to be more, by inferential deduction that the husband is an able bodied man who can generate reasonable amount of income, and is legally bound to financially support his wife who is unable to maintain herself. 9. The aforesaid reasoning assigned by the learned Court below cannot be found fault with especially when the same is backed by various verdicts of this and as well as the apex Court. 10. More so, the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a case under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act after taken que from the principles of fixation of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act has held on an approximate basis that Rs. 200/- per day for an estranged wife would be sufficient to meet requirement of provision of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act which deals with a pendant life maintenance. The relevant portion of the said order passed in F.A. No.196/2017 (Smt. Reeta Bais v. Vishwapratap Singh Bais) is reproduced below : "4. 200/- per day for an estranged wife would be sufficient to meet requirement of provision of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act which deals with a pendant life maintenance. The relevant portion of the said order passed in F.A. No.196/2017 (Smt. Reeta Bais v. Vishwapratap Singh Bais) is reproduced below : "4. Thus the only question which now begs for an answer is about the quantum of pendente lite maintenance awarded. 4.1. It is not denied that the respondent-husband is an able bodied man who is legally responsible to maintain his wife who has no source of livelihood. 4.2. This Court is of the considered view that from the current standard of living and rising price index the amount of compensation of Rs. 4000/- per month is deficient to sustain a woman as well as her infant child. 4.3. To prima facie ascertain the minimum essentials required to allow an individual to survive and live a life of dignity, this court deems it appropriate to seek guidance from the Notification No. S.O.2413(E) dated 28th July, 2017 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prescribing minimum rates of wages for unskilled Labourer as Rs. 350/- per day. 4.4. This Court is of the considered view that taking a modest figure of Rs. 200/- per day for the appellant wife and Rs. 100/- per day for her infant child would suffice to enable them to sustain a life of dignity allowing them to meet the requirement of necessity and a little bit of comfort. 5. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month for wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month for the child would be reasonable pendente lite maintenance." The above said order has been upheld by the apex Court by dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 1529-1530 of 2018 on 12.1.2018" 11. Going by above principle laid down by the Division Bench, maintenance allowance awarded @ Rs. 7,000/- per month may ostensibly appear to a bit on the excessive side, but considering the rapid rise in price index and inflationary trend and the impugned order passed more than 3½ years ago , this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the same. 12. There is no ground of procedural irregularity, impropriety or illegality or want of jurisdiction made out in the present petition. Therefore, interference is not warranted in the order impugned. 13. 12. There is no ground of procedural irregularity, impropriety or illegality or want of jurisdiction made out in the present petition. Therefore, interference is not warranted in the order impugned. 13. Accordingly, present revision stands dismissed.