JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - This criminal revision case was filed by the wife under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') against the order dated 08.07.2011 in Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereby the learned Sessions Judge modified the order dated 08.02.2010 in M.C. No. 40 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam reducing maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- per month from Rs. 30,000/- per month. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision are referred to as they are arrayed in M.C. No. 40 of 2008. 3. Petitioner (wife) filed M.C. No. 40 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month. In the petition, it was contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 18.05.2006. At the time of marriage Rs. 8 lakhs was given as dowry apart from other panchanams. After the marriage, the respondent, his parents and sisters harassed the petitioner demanding to bring additional dowry. Besides, the respondent used to move closely with a woman by name Budithi Lalitha at his place of work at Bangalore. When the petitioner informed about the dowry harassment and love affair of respondent with the said woman, the respondents and his parents treated her with cruelty and finally, they drove out her from the house in December, 2006 and since then, petitioner is residing at her parents' house. Thereafter the petitioner raised dispute before the elders, but the respondent and his parents did not heed the advice of elders. In the month of March, 2008, the parents of respondent came to Rajam and threatened the petitioner to sign on stamp paper for giving divorce to respondent. On that petitioner gave a report to police. Respondent and his parents obtained anticipatory bail. Petitioner, being lady is unable to maintain herself and she is depending upon the mercy of her parents. The respondent is working as software engineer and getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and he is having vast immovable properties and getting Rs. 20 lakhs of yield on the same. Hence, she filed petition claiming maintenance. 4. Respondent filed counter and contended inter alia that petitioner is working as lecturer in English in Sistam Engineering College, Srikakulam. The respondent is working as software engineer and getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and he is having vast immovable properties and getting Rs. 20 lakhs of yield on the same. Hence, she filed petition claiming maintenance. 4. Respondent filed counter and contended inter alia that petitioner is working as lecturer in English in Sistam Engineering College, Srikakulam. After the marriage, the petitioner never lived as dutiful wife and she never looked after his parents, used to pick up quarrels and used to suspect the respondent that is having contacts with several people and used to abuse him in filthy language. Petitioner lived with the respondent hardly for five months and she used to leave the matrimonial home without any intimation. It was further stated that petitioner filed domestic violence case after filing the maintenance case and the version of petitioner in both the cases is different. The petitioner and her parents also filed a criminal case with false allegations against the respondent and his parents. The respondent lost his employment, due to filing of several cases by the petitioner. The petitioner being a postgraduate is doing job and she is having sufficient means to maintain herself. Petitioner has also got movable and immovable properties at her native place and able to maintain herself and hence, she is not entitled to seek maintenance. 5. During the course of enquiry, petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1, got examined P.Ws. 2 and 3. Respondent examined himself as R.W. 1 and got examined R.Ws. 2 and 3. No documents were marked on either side. 6. Learned Magistrate by order dated 08.02.2010 allowed the M.C. No. 40 of 2009 by granting maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of petition and also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2010, learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned Magistrate and reduced maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner from Rs. 30,000/-. Assailing the same, the above criminal revision case was filed. 7. Heard Sri Tota Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Chalapatti Rao, learned counsel for 1st respondent and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for 2nd respondent-State. 8. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner from Rs. 30,000/-. Assailing the same, the above criminal revision case was filed. 7. Heard Sri Tota Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Chalapatti Rao, learned counsel for 1st respondent and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for 2nd respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the fact that respondent is working as Software Engineer and he is more than 2 lakhs per month. He would further submit that the learned Magistrate on a consideration of income of husband and present day cost of living awarded maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, the learned Sessions Judge in a revision went beyond the scope and reduced the maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- per month and eventually prayed Court to allow the criminal revision case. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the learned Session Judge rightly appreciated the entire evidence. Having considered the financial capacity of respondent, maintenance was reduced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. He also further submits that marriage between revision petitioner and respondent was dissolved. Revision petitioner filed criminal case under Section 498A of IPC and also Domestic Violence Case and, they were dismissed by the concerned Courts. He further submits that the revision petitioner herself admitted in her cross examination that at that time, respondent is not having any job and he is only searching for job. He finally submits that there are no merits in this criminal revision and it is liable to be dismissed. 10. The purpose and object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is predicated on two conditions i.e. (1) husband has sufficient means and (2) neglects to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. Maintenance may be awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. 11. In Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Kamala Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is 'unable to maintain herself' is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held: '19. Maintenance may be awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. 11. In Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Kamala Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is 'unable to maintain herself' is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held: '19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.' (emphasis supplied) Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500/- 'in the whole'. 12. In Chaturbhuj Vs. Sitabai (2008) 2 SCC 316 , the Apex Court held that- 'The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.' 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353 held that- 'Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.' 14. There is no dispute regarding marriage between the parties. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.' 14. There is no dispute regarding marriage between the parties. There is also no dispute about lodging compliant under Sec 498-A and DVC case filed by revision petitioner were dismissed and the revision petitioner and respondent were also granted divorce. P.W. 1 deposed in her evidence that she worked as lecturer in SISTAM Engineering College from December, 2005 to 11.05.2006. Before marriage, she resigned to the job. Admittedly, the marriage took place on 18.05.2006. But no evidence was placed by the respondent to prove that revision petitioner is working as Lecturer and getting sufficient income. However, even though the revision petitioner alleged that respondent has got immovable properties and getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per month by working as Software Engineer, in the cross examination P.W. 1 herself admitted that at present the respondent is not having any job and he is only searching for job. 15. The observation made by the lower Court for granting maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- to the revision petitioner is that the respondent was granted anticipatory bail on condition of his furnishing cash security of Rs. 3,00,000/- and thus, respondent is having sufficient means and financially sound to maintain the petitioner. However, a perusal of the record, it is clear that at the time of granting anticipatory bail, respondent was working in London and in order to protect his job prospects, the parents of respondents furnish the cash security of Rs. 3,00,000/- before the Court. But due to filing of criminal case by the revision petitioner under Section 498A of IPC, respondent lost his job. Thus, the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court, without considering the income of the respondent may not be in consonance with the expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court as also evidence on record. 16. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha & others (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: 'III. Thus, the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court, without considering the income of the respondent may not be in consonance with the expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court as also evidence on record. 16. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha & others (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: 'III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance (i) The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent 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. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent 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. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [ (2017) 15 SCC 801 ], this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent 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 spiraling 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. (ii) 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.' 17. In view of the expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, 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. As observed by this Court, while the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate is on higher side in view of financial status of respondent-husband, the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is proportionately low, in view of cost of living of present days and escalation of prices of essential commodities. Respondent/husband is soft-ware employee. A perusal of evidence discloses that when he was in London respondent's salary is in lakhs. However, at the time of deposition, respondent is searching for jobs. But according to revision petitioner, respondent now employed in Bangalore is getting Rs. four lakhs per month. Of course, no salary certificate is filed by wife. However, husband did not deny the fact that he is now working in Bangalore as software engineer. It is trite law that husband is expected to reveal, the salary particulars. But according to revision petitioner, respondent now employed in Bangalore is getting Rs. four lakhs per month. Of course, no salary certificate is filed by wife. However, husband did not deny the fact that he is now working in Bangalore as software engineer. It is trite law that husband is expected to reveal, the salary particulars. Considering the facts of the case as also evidence on record, standard of living, present day cost of living, this Court is of the considered opinion that the quantum of maintenance requires to be enhanced. 18. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is partly allowed and the order dated 08.07.2011 in Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam is modified directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition and shall also continue to pay future maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The respondent shall also pay the arrears of maintenance within eight months in eight equal installments, from the date of this order. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.