ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. A husband is aggrieved of the trial Court’s failure to effect alteration of allowance of monthly maintenance. He impugns the order dated 23.12.2022 of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 in M.C.No.10 of 201 in this revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Respondent No.2 is the wife of the revision petitioner. Respondent No.1 is the State. 2. Proceeding sheet of this Court indicates that after 31.01.2023 there has been no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner on successive dates of hearing. Even when the matter was posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no change. However, since the revision needs disposal on merits, the matter was listed on 24.07.2024. On which date also, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and thus, except the grounds urged in the revision, there were no arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner. 3. For respondent No.2/the wife, Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, the learned counsel appeared and submitted arguments and cited legal authorities and urged the Court to dismiss the revision. 4. On considering the material on record and the submissions made before this Court, the point that falls for consideration is : “Whether the change of circumstances are such requiring alteration in the monthly maintenance allowance and whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference? POINT: 5. Undisputed facts available from the record indicate the following aspects: On 31.12.2019 the revision petitioner retired on superannuation as Assistant Commandant, 16th Battalion, APSP, Kakinada. Respondent No.2 is his legally wedded wife. They have two children during their wedded life. The eldest is the daughter who is stated to be 36 years old and the younger one is a son aged 26 years. His wife and children are living together while the revision petitioner is living separately. Though there are allegations that he had two other wives, we are not concerned with that in the present case. While he was in service, it was stated that he was earning a salary of Rs.90,000/- per month. The wife filed M.C.No.10 of 2010 and D.V.C.No.1 of 2010. After due enquiry, both the claims were answered in favour of the wife. While he was in service, it was stated that he was earning a salary of Rs.90,000/- per month. The wife filed M.C.No.10 of 2010 and D.V.C.No.1 of 2010. After due enquiry, both the claims were answered in favour of the wife. In terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C., Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance was granted in M.C.No.10 of 2010 by the learned trial Court. As the wife was constrained to live in a rented house, the husband was directed to pay Rs.3,500/- towards her house rent as per the orders in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010. It seems that there has been substantial compliance with these orders on his part. 6. During subsequent periods, the wife sought enhancement of monthly maintenance and filed before the learned trial Court Crl.M.P.No.1921 of 2015. By an order dated 19.09.2016 her monthly maintenance allowance was enhanced and was fixed at Rs.15,000. Thereafter she filed Crl.M.P.No.1335 of 2019 and after due enquiry once again there was revision and this time monthly maintenance allowance was fixed at Rs.20,000/- by order dated 22.08.2019. After the said orders, the revision petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2019. By virtue of his retirement, it is stated, he was no longer entitled for the salary that he used to get while in service and his pension was fixed which is undoubtedly lower than the regular salary that he used to get. It is on that premise the husband filed Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking to modify the maintenance allowance and reduce it. He contended that he was receiving a pension of Rs.33,000/- per month. By the existing orders he has been paying Rs.20,000/- + Rs.3,500/- to the wife and therefore what remained with him is meager to maintain himself. He contended that he is growing in his age and there are growing medical needs. The wife filed her counter refuting those allegations and brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate about the other assets and steady revenue that he has been receiving from them which include building given on rent and agricultural lands. The learned Magistrate after due enquiry dismissed Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 and refused to alter the allowance as sought by the husband. It premised its decision on two points. It stated that by mere retirement he was unable to show such circumstances requiring the Court to grant the reduction in the maintenance allowance. The learned Magistrate after due enquiry dismissed Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 and refused to alter the allowance as sought by the husband. It premised its decision on two points. It stated that by mere retirement he was unable to show such circumstances requiring the Court to grant the reduction in the maintenance allowance. It further held that while the latest of the enhancement petitions in Crl.M.P.No.1335 of 2019 was enquired into, the husband presented before the Court about his imminent retirement in few months and the Court considered that and after giving due consideration of that fact arrived at the conclusion that the wife was still entitled for enhanced maintenance and fixed it at Rs.20,000/- per month. Since the essential contentions raised in the present petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the husband were already addressed in Crl.M.P.No.1335 of 2019, there was no need to take a different view. It was in those circumstances it dismissed the said petition. 7. Aggrieved by that, the present revision is filed. It is averred that no evidence by way of documents was shown by the wife that the building owned by the revision petitioner has two floors. That Rs.40,000/- he has been earning on his agricultural land is an amount per year and not an amount per month and trial Court erred in noticing it differently. It is stated that his gross pension is Rs.54,955/-. It was taken into consideration by the trial Court and in doing so, it committed a grave error as his net pension (take home) was only Rs.39,248/- as seen from the record. That error makes the life of the petitioner miserable as he is only left with Rs.15,748/- towards his monthly pension. It is for these reasons he seeks the indulgence of this Court in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the material on record abundantly convinced the Court below and a reasonable view was taken and accordingly the order of the learned trial Court cannot be found fault with. Learned counsel urges that mere retirement from service by itself cannot lead to an abstract principle for reduction of monthly maintenance allowance and cited in this regard Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 , which ruling was also followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in S. Murugan v. Tamilarasi, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 12664. 9. 9. After considering the material on record and the submissions advanced here and the rulings cited, the following aspects are to be stated: Growing needs and inflation are the constants which affect lives of everyone. A man in service earns more money by way of salary and what he could draw as a pension is obviously lesser than his salary he used to get earlier. Before the Court below, an enquiry was held during which time this revision petitioner testified as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P.4 were marked. The wife testified as RW.1 and exhibited Exs.R.1 to R.4. By then the latest document was the pension slip/pay slip for the month of December, 2022. It discloses that this revision petitioner has take home pension of Rs.39,298/-. This figure was arrived at after deduction of income tax and EHF subscription. If this is the only income and if he has no other income, then after paying monthly allowance of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance and Rs.3,500/- towards house rent of his wife, he holds only Rs.15,748/-. What was considered right while his earnings were Rs.90,000/- stood completely changed requiring an alteration in the above referred changed circumstances. To that extent, the grievance of the revision petitioner shows justification. However, things do not end there. The observations of the trial Court pertain to two other aspects. It mentioned that this revision petitioner owns agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2.30 cents at Neredumilli Grampanchat, West Godavari District. Trial Court mentioned that he has been earning Rs.40,000/- per month as lease. In this revision it is urged that the said land is yielding Rs.40,000/- per year, but the trial Court considered it as Rs.40,000/- per month. On agricultural land the usual lease yielding is once or twice per year, but not every month. This aspect remained undisputed. Viewed from that angle, there is the error on part of the trial Court in considering this amount of money as a monthly revenue. Hence, it reached to erroneous conclusions. 10. The other aspect for consideration is about the building owned by the revision petitioner. The ownership of the building is not disputed. That he is living on the ground floor is undisputed. The fact at dispute is whether there is first floor and whether that was given out to a tenant on a monthly rent or not. 10. The other aspect for consideration is about the building owned by the revision petitioner. The ownership of the building is not disputed. That he is living on the ground floor is undisputed. The fact at dispute is whether there is first floor and whether that was given out to a tenant on a monthly rent or not. Learned trial Court recorded that PW.1/the revision petitioner herein in his evidence admitted that he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month by giving the first floor to a tenant. Thus, there is an annual income of Rs.42,000/- from this asset. Thus, the service pension and the rental income put together comes to Rs.3,500/- + Rs.39,298/- = Rs.42,798/- per month. 11. There is another factor that needs attention. While in service he was saving by virtue of statutory remittances and on his superannuation he had got all that back. From the oral and documentary evidence presented before the Court below, a finding was arrived at showing that this revision petitioner received Rs.49,07,000/- towards retiral benefits. Thus, a lump sum amount had come to his account. While it is true that he had cleared off his loan by expending some part of money as per Ex.P.2, the fact remains that substantial amount of these retiral benefits in the form of cash are available with him and there are no other legal or contractual obligations on his shoulders any more. Be it noted, as the years passed by, the spouses get older, each requires more care and attention and they call for more financial inputs. There would be periodical revision of pension in terms of Dearness Allowance to a pensioner such as the revision petitioner. However, a Court granted monthly maintenance do not get automatically get revised. It always requires proceedings before the Court. The revision petitioner is now comfortable in his own house and has the company of his tenant and the rents payable by him. Further, he also owns his agricultural lands which yield a certain amount of revenue to him. Added to that, his bank account is plush with considerable amount he received towards retiral benefits. In such circumstances, the change that came in his life because of his superannuation does not substantially affect his financial capacity to pay the allowance which he has been paying to his wife till now. Added to that, his bank account is plush with considerable amount he received towards retiral benefits. In such circumstances, the change that came in his life because of his superannuation does not substantially affect his financial capacity to pay the allowance which he has been paying to his wife till now. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court must be endorsed as the view that is reasonable and prudent. Despite errors noticed in the order of the trial Court, the conclusions reached by it are correct. Viewed from all perspectives, this Court finds that the prayer of the revision petitioner for reduction of monthly maintenance, which he has been paying to his wife, does not deserve a positive nod from the Court. There is no merit in this revision. Hence, the point is answered against the revision petitioner. 12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2022 of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 in M.C.No.10 of 2010 stands confirmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.