JUDGMENT Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Cr.Mp No. 1013 of 2021 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the main petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Cr.MMO No. 282 of 2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month each awarded to petitioner's wife and daughter in the year 2010 in proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/-, respectively vide impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 11.9.2020 in a revision petition arising out of proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C.. This order is in question in the present petition. 2. Facts. 2(i) The respondents filed petition No. 19/2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The petition was compromised before Lok Adalat on 18.12.2010 and maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month each was awarded to the respondents from the date of award. 2(ii) Six years later, on 13.12.2016 the respondents moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount to Rs.20,000/- per month each. The enhancement in the maintenance was prayed on the ground that cost of living had increased manifolds, price index had gone up and that the respondents were facing difficulty to maintain their ends meet with the meager maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month each. Respondent No. 2 was a student of sixth class at the time of filing the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and it was pleaded that she was studying in a private school and also taking tuitions. Therefore, need to enhance the maintenance amount was emphasized. It was also stated that the petitioner was posted as Senior Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank and drawing salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It was also alleged that he had not even paid the maintenance amount for the last two years. The respondents submitted that they had no other source of income and, therefore, prayed for enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- per month each (earlier awarded to them) to Rs.20,000/- per month each. 2(iii) The petitioner, who is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 denied any liability to pay the claimed enhancement. He stated that respondent No. 1 was an able bodied lady and doing private job. He also took up a defence of having loan liability of Rs.23.62 lacs. 2(iii) The petitioner, who is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 denied any liability to pay the claimed enhancement. He stated that respondent No. 1 was an able bodied lady and doing private job. He also took up a defence of having loan liability of Rs.23.62 lacs. The petitioner also claimed that he had filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration that respondent No. 1 was not his legally wedded wife. 2(iv) The parties led evidence. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence and hearing the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur vide order dated 1.8.2018 enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month for respondent No. 1 (petitioner's wife) and from Rs.2000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month for respondent No. 2 (petitioner's daughter). The enhancement was ordered from the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner challenged this order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find any substantial error in the findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month enhanced by learned trial court in favour of petitioner's daughter was reduced to Rs.12,000/- per month. Rest of the order passed by the learned trial count was not interfered. Aggrieved against the enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded in favour of the respondents, petitioner has filed the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no proof on record to show that respondent No. 1 was legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Therefore, no maintenance could have been awarded in her favour. Next he submits that the petitioner has loan liability of around Rs.24 lacs whreas respondent No. 1 is doing private job. Considering these aspects, learned counsel contends that the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/-, respectively awarded in favour of the respondents is on the higher side. 4. Observations. 4(i) Income of the petitioner The petitioner stated before the learned trial court that his income was Rs.37,588.84/- per month. Income certificate was not placed on record. It was also stated that he has to repay loan amount of around Rs.24 lacs. In his defence he also raised a plea that his father was old and had undergone bypass surgery. 4(i) Income of the petitioner The petitioner stated before the learned trial court that his income was Rs.37,588.84/- per month. Income certificate was not placed on record. It was also stated that he has to repay loan amount of around Rs.24 lacs. In his defence he also raised a plea that his father was old and had undergone bypass surgery. Learned courts below have noticed that the petitioner had himself admitted in his evidence that his father was an Ex. Army personnel and had availed ECH facility in the Indian Army. Petitioner's father died in September 2015. Petitioner on one hand expressed his ignorance about his salary but on the other hand he admitted working as Manager since 2011 in Punjab National Bank and stated that he earned more than Rs.70,000/- per month as gross salary and that he was owner of vehicle Swift VDI 2012 model. These facts as noticed by the learned trial Court and by learned Additional Sessions Judge have not even been disputed before me. In fact, learned Additional Sessions Judge has also referred to an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Cr.MMO No. 69/2019, decided on 24.4.2019 wherein the petitioner himself pleaded his income as Rs.80,000/- per month. In that case petitioner had challenged an order dated 12.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge directing him to clear arrears and pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondents. Relevant paras of the judgment dated 24.4.2019 run as under:- "5. Respondents earlier maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and they were awarded monthly maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- each. The petitioner herein has stated that his father had undergone bypass surgery and he has loan liability of Rs. 24,00,000/- (rupees twenty four lac). The petitioner could not produce any medical record of his father and he has admitted in his cross-examination that his father is an Ex Army personnel and he availed medical facility under ECH. The petitioner further admitted that since 2012, he is working as Bank Manager and his monthly salary is more than Rs. 70,000/-. He further deposed that he owns vehicle Swift. Admittedly, the petitioner's monthly income is Rs. 80,000/- per month and he is deputed as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank. 6. The petitioner further admitted that since 2012, he is working as Bank Manager and his monthly salary is more than Rs. 70,000/-. He further deposed that he owns vehicle Swift. Admittedly, the petitioner's monthly income is Rs. 80,000/- per month and he is deputed as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank. 6. The petitioner had tried to convince this Court that he has to look after his old father and the maintenance allowance, so awarded, is on very higher side. Generally, speaking expression 'maintenance' means appropriate food, clothing and shelter. The word 'maintenance' is not to be narrowly interpreted. Indeed, maintenance encapsulates constant expenses towards the wife and children. In the instant case, maintenance to respondent No. 1 has been awarded keeping in mind her regular day to day expenses and for respondent No. 2 maintenance has included minimum amount for her education. Indeed, maintenance to a child does not mean providing raiment and food only. Maintenance to only human body is not sufficient, especially in case of children, as the children need to be educated and their overall development has to be kept in mind. In the instant case also, respondent No. 2, who is daughter of the petitioner, has been awarded maintenance by the learned Trial Court keeping in mind her educational expenses. PW-1 Smt. Sarita Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) deposed that educational and other expenses of the daughter (respondent No. 2 herein) are more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has further deposed that she has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 6500/-. 7. It has come on record that the petitioner has sufficient source of income, whereas the respondents have no source of income. In the above set of circumstances, this Court finds that respondent No. 2 is totally dependent for her education and other expenses on the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is also dependent upon the maintenance allowance awarded to her. Keeping in view the growing inflation rate as also the overall aspects of the case, this Court finds that the respondents have no source of income to meet their day to day expenses and respondent No. 2 needs money for her education, so it cannot be said that order granting the respondents monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- each is at all unreasonable. 10,000/- each is at all unreasonable. However, as the revision petition is pending adjudication before the learned Revisional Court below, the petitioner herein can argue and defend his cause there." 4(ii) Income of respondents Respondents were awarded maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month each on 18.12.2010 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Six years later on 2016, the respondents moved for enhancement in the maintenance amount on the ground that petitioner's daughter-respondent No. 2 was now studying in 6th class in a private school and also taking tuitions. Higher cost of living and increase in the price index were also taken as grounds for filing the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. There was nothing to suggest that respondents had any source of income. Learned Additional Sessions Judge appropriately appreciated the statement made by the petitioner while appearing as RW3 wherein he stated that his wife was earning Rs.15,000/- by cooking meals and sweeping the houses of others and drew correct inference from such statement that this statement speaks volumes about the plight of the respondents. Earning livelihood by the wife of a Senior Manger of the Bank, by working as domestic helper goes to show that she has no source of income and that she is making desperate efforts to make both ends meet and to educate her daughter by accepting the work below her dignity, which she would have enjoyed as wife of the Senior Manager. Her earning by doing such work cannot be taken as source of income. 4(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 1 is not petitioner's legally wedded wife. However, during hearing he fairly stated that a suit filed by the petitioner in this regard seeking declaration about respondent No. 1 being not his legally wedded wife, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. In any event, the impugned orders have been passed in proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The orders passed previously under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not under challenge. The respondents are only seeking enhancement in the maintenance amount awarded to them on 18.12.2010 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4(iv) In titled Sanjeev Kapoor versus Chandana Kapoor and others, (2020) 13 SCC 172 it was held by the Apex Court that after passing the judgment in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court does not become functus officio. The respondents are only seeking enhancement in the maintenance amount awarded to them on 18.12.2010 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4(iv) In titled Sanjeev Kapoor versus Chandana Kapoor and others, (2020) 13 SCC 172 it was held by the Apex Court that after passing the judgment in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court does not become functus officio. Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself contains provisions where order previously passed can be cancelled or altered. It was also held that Section 127 Cr.P.C. discloses legislative intent where the Magistrate is empowered to alter an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Sub Section (2) of Section 127 Cr.P.C. also empowers the Magistrate to cancel or vary an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has to be interpreted in a manner as to advance justice to protect a woman for whose benefit the provisions have been engrafted. After considering various precedents, the Apex Court in titled Rajnesh versus Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 postulated criteria for determining quantum of maintenance. Some of relevant paras from the judgment are as under: "III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance 77. The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 80. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort." It was also observed that living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement basic education must also be reasonably factored while awarding child support. In the instant case, maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month each was awarded to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in the year 2010 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondents who are wife and daughter of petitioner were certainly within their rights to seek enhancement in the maintenance amount in the year 2016 by invoking provisions of Section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground of higher cost of living, higher price index. Their circumstances had changed. Respondent No. 2-the daughter of petitioner by 2016 was in sixth class, studying in a private school and also taking coaching. Her expenses had increased. Respondent No. 1 has deposed that she was paying monthly rent of Rs.6500/-. We are now in the year 2021. Their circumstances had changed. Respondent No. 2-the daughter of petitioner by 2016 was in sixth class, studying in a private school and also taking coaching. Her expenses had increased. Respondent No. 1 has deposed that she was paying monthly rent of Rs.6500/-. We are now in the year 2021. Change in circumstances would include rise in cost of living. Fact of inflation, resulting in fall in purchasing power of money and consequent rising cost of commodities can be taken as grounds for enhancing maintenance (see Prafulla Kumar Panda versus Smt. Amari Kumari Panda, (1996) CriLJ 553 , Dhan Raj versus Kishni and another, (1998) CriLJ 1312. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondents have any other source of income save and except the maintenance amount. Petitioner's contention that his wife-respondent No. 1 is able bodied and earns Rs.15,000/- per month by washing floors and utensils in other people's homes, to escape any liability from paying enhanced maintenance amount, is in a very bad taste. It reflects that respondent No. 1, who is wife of a Senior Manager of Bank is compelled to earn living by doing menial jobs. Petitioner is admittedly working as a Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank. His salary, as has come in the judgment dated 24.4.2019 delivered by a coordinate Bench of this court in Cr.MMO No. 69/2019 (Harish Chand versus Sarita Devi & another), is Rs.80,000/-. He has himself admitted his gross salary to be more that Rs.70,000/-. Petitioner has tried to evade paying enhanced amount of maintenance by raising plea of illness of his father. Both the learned courts below noticed that father of petitioner was an ex-serviceman and had availed ECH facility. Petitioner's father died in 2015. Another plea pressed to evade enhancement was his loan liability. Hon'ble Apex Court in titled Sau Suman Narayan Niphade and another versus Narayan Sitaram Niphade and another, (1995) Supp4 SCC 243 held that merely because the husband has incurred liability to pay installments by obtaining loans is no ground for denying maintenance to wife and minor child. Amount of maintenance must be befitting the status of parties and the capacity of spouse to pay maintenance. Amount of maintenance is dependent upon factual situation of each case. Amount of maintenance must be befitting the status of parties and the capacity of spouse to pay maintenance. Amount of maintenance is dependent upon factual situation of each case. Considering all the above aspects, I find that the maintenance amount enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of petitioner's wife and from Rs.2000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of petitioner's daughter is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference in the impugned orders is called for. Petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.