JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. Cr.MP(M) No.433 of 2020 1. For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 103 days in filing the revision petition, which in my considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Petition be registered Cr. Revision No._62 of 2021 2. By way of instant criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has been laid to order dated 6.7.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Family Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in petition No.111/19/2018, titled as Shyama Devi versus Sat Pal Singh, whereby learned Court below while allowing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C., for enhancement of maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2500/- to Rs.6000/-. 3. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 4. Vide order dated 16.6.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, a sum of Rs. 2500/- came to be awarded in favour of the petitioner on account of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since aforesaid order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C was passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, in the year, 2010 taking into consideration the income of the respondent at that relevant time, petitioner filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., in the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi, H.P., praying therein for enchantment of maintenance on the ground that in last nine years salary of the respondent has doubled and on account of hike in prices, she is unable to meet her day to day expenses in the sum of Rs. 2500/- awarded in her favour on account of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Petitioner in her application for enhancement averred that in the year, 2010 respondent was getting salary of Rs. 12000/- per month, but now since same has been increased substantially and respondent earns sum of Rs. 45000/ -per month from own sources, she may be awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month. 12000/- per month, but now since same has been increased substantially and respondent earns sum of Rs. 45000/ -per month from own sources, she may be awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month. She claimed before the court below that she has no source of income and has no movable or immovable property and as such, is compelled to survive on the meager amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.2500/- per month awarded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She submitted before the court below that on account of various ailments suffered by her, she is compelled to spend huge amount on medical treatment and as such, maintenance of Rs. 2500/- awarded by the court below may be enhanced to Rs. 15000/- per month. 5. Respondent while refuting the aforesaid claim of the petitioner pleaded before the court below that he is not getting more than Rs.30,000/- per month and his monthly salary is only Rs. 16,000/- per month. He submitted before the court below that apart from petitioner, he is also liable to take care of her old parents as well as college going children. Respondent specifically denied that he has landed property and jersey cows. 6. Petitioner with a view to prove her case examined herself as well as one witness namely, Jagdish Guleria. While deposing before the court below petitioner claimed that at the time of awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month, respondent was getting salary of Rs. 12000/- per month. She stated that now respondent is getting salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. She stated that she remains ill and as such, it is difficult for her to maintain herself in the sum of Rs.2500/- awarded in her favour under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Respondent Sat Pal Singh while examining himself as RW-1 deposed that he is getting salary of Rs. 16,850/- as per certificate Ex.PW1/A, whereas court below after having perused the salary certificate Ex.PW1/A placed on record has categorically recorded that for the month of April, 2015 respondent has received gross salary of Rs. 24282/-. Similarly, latest salary certificate for the month of May, 2018 reveals that though gross salary of the respondent is Rs. 36976/- but he gets net payable salary to the tune of Rs.29544/-. 8. 24282/-. Similarly, latest salary certificate for the month of May, 2018 reveals that though gross salary of the respondent is Rs. 36976/- but he gets net payable salary to the tune of Rs.29544/-. 8. On the basis of aforesaid evidence led on record by the respective parties, learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi arrived at a conclusion that on account of hike-in price of essential commodities, sum of Rs. 2500/- awarded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi on 16.6.2010 is not sufficient for the petitioner and as such, ordered for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.2500/- to Rs.6000/- per month. Petitioner being not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.6000/- to Rs.15000/-. 9. Though, having taken note of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court finds that gross salary of the respondent is Rs.36,976/-, but in hand he gets Rs.29,544/-. It is also true that at the time of passing of order dated 16.6.2010, whereby sum of Rs. 2500/- was ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, net salary of respondent was Rs.12000/- per month, which has now doubled. Having taken note of aforesaid increase in salary coupled with the difficulties being faced by the petitioner on account of hike-in-price, learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi has already ordered for substantial increase in maintenance amount, which order in fact has been graciously accepted by the respondent as he has not laid challenge to the aforesaid order. Since petitioner is 55 years old lady having no movable or immovable property, it can be safely presumed/inferred that it would be difficult for her to maintain herself within a sum of Rs.6000/-, but the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent apart from her wife is also responsible to take care of her old parents as well as college going children and as such, sum of Rs. 15000/- as claimed by the petitioner cannot be awarded. During the proceedings of the case, this Court has been informed that now respondent stands retired from the service, meaning thereby he will get an amount half of the last salary drawn. Mr. 15000/- as claimed by the petitioner cannot be awarded. During the proceedings of the case, this Court has been informed that now respondent stands retired from the service, meaning thereby he will get an amount half of the last salary drawn. Mr. Devender K. Sharma learned counsel representing the respondent argued that since respondent would get pension i.e. half of the salary, there is no scope for further enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the court below, rather amount awarded as maintenance by the court below deserves to be reduced drastically. However, this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent. It is well settled by now that if husband is able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under legal obligation to support and maintain his wife and children, who are entitled to receive maintenance under various provisions of law. Reliance is placed upon judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan JT 2015 (3) SC 576, wherein it has been held as follows:- “15. ………Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. [JT 1997 (7) SC 531: 1997 (7) SCC 7 ] has held as follows:- “The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.” 16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [JT 2008 (1) SC 78 : 2008 (2) SCC 316 ], it has been ruled that:- “Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [ 1978 (4) SCC 70 ] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [JT 2005 (3) SC 164]”. 16.1. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. 17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [AIR 1968 Delhi 174] wherein it has been opined thus:- “An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such ablebodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.” 10. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid enunciation of law that once husband is an able bodied person he cannot simply deny his legal obligation to maintain his wife and children. Taking into consideration aforesaid facts coupled with the price index and high cost of living, amount awarded by the Court below deserves to be enhanced. Since income of the respondent stands substantially reduced on account of his retirement coupled with the fact that he apart from his wife is also liable to take responsibility of his old parents and college going children, prayer for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 15,000/- cannot be accepted. But in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to enhance amount of compensation awarded by learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi, from Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/- per month, but such enhancement shall be applicable from the date of passing of the instant judgment. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present revision petition is allowed and order passed by learned Sessions Judge (Family Court) Mandi, H.P., is modified to the extent that petitioner would be entitled to maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8000/- instead of Rs.6000/ per month awarded by the learned Court below from the date of passing of the instant order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.