ORDER 1. Both these revisions have been filed by the applicants against order dated 31.12.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhatarpur in MJCR/3/2018 whereby applicant Dheeraj Chourasiya (hereinafter referred to as the husband) has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to Smt. Jyoti Chourasiya (hereinafter referred to as the wife). 2. The husband has filed Criminal Revision No. 1696 of 2020 to set aside the aforesaid order whereas the wife has filed Criminal Revision No.578 of 2020 for enhancement of maintenance amount. 3. Admittedly, marriage of applicants was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 14.2.2017. The wife started living separately from the husband since 1.1.2018 on the ground that behaviour of the husband and his family members towards wife was not proper. They used to harass her mentally and physically in connection with demand of dowry. It was also alleged that the husband was in relation with some other lady and an offence under section 376 of IPC has also been registered against the husband. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband that the behaviour of the wife towards her husband was not proper. She used to quarrel with him on petty issues and she is residing separately from her husband without any sufficient reason. It is further submitted that the wife is running a General Store in the name and style of "Aryan 3 in 1" and she is capable to maintain herself. It is also submitted that due to complaint made by the wife, the husband has lost his job and at present he is unemployed. The husband has responsibility to maintain his parents. Hence, the wife is not entitled to get any maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Smt. Jyoti Chourasiya is a legally wedded wife of Dheeraj Chourasiya. It is also not in dispute that she is residing separately from the applicant since the year 2018 because husband and his family members used to harass her in connection with demand dowry. Husband has admitted that he is facing trial under section 376 of IPC. Other allegation levelled by the wife were also unrebutted from her evidence. It is also not in dispute that she is residing separately from the applicant since the year 2018 because husband and his family members used to harass her in connection with demand dowry. Husband has admitted that he is facing trial under section 376 of IPC. Other allegation levelled by the wife were also unrebutted from her evidence. It has also been proved from the evidence of both the parties that the husband did not provide any financial aid to his wife after their separation nor he made any sincere effort to bring her back to his house, therefore, from the perusal of record, it appears that wife was having sufficient reason to reside separately from the husband, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, wife is entitled to get maintenance amount from her husband. 6. So far as income of wife is concerned, learned counsel for the wife submits that merely printing mobile number on the board of General Store does not prove that she is earning from the said shop. The shop belongs to other family member of the wife and she only helps them in their business. 7. Even if it is assumed that the wife is earning some amount from General Store, the husband cannot be absolved from his liability to maintain his wife. The husband is able bodied healthy person, it is his moral duty to maintain his wife as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein it is held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. If the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. Plea that the husband 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. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court. By considering maintenance allowance, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered about the maintenance of minor children for their educational expenses and living expenses including expenses for food, clothing, residence and medical expenses and held that it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for them. 8. Thus, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that the applicant is an able bodied person. He is capable to earn money and it is his moral duty to maintain his wife, who has sufficient reason to reside separately. 9. So far as quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, in my considered opinion, the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month granted by the trial Court to the wife appears to be on lower side looking to the day-byday increase in cost of living now-a-days. Therefore, the maintenance amount is enhanced from Rs.3000/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month, which shall be paid by the husband to the respondent from the date of impugned order i.e. 31.12.2019. The arrears shall be paid by the husband within 3 months from today. 10. In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Revision No. 1696 of 2020 filed by the husband is hereby dismissed and Criminal Revision No. 578 of 2020 filed by the wife is hereby partly allowed.