JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Maintenance Alteration Case No.01/2021, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay half of his retiral benefits and half of the pension amount to opposite party no.2 from the month of his retirement i.e. October, 2020. 3. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party no.2 stating therein that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs on 14.03.1984 and they were blessed with four daughters and, thereafter, the petitioner has come in relationship with another woman and opposite party no.2 has been deprived of her every right including basic needs. He submits that in the petition it has also been stated about filing of other cases and at one time compromise has reached between the parties in Maintenance Case No.05/1994 and in light of the compromise, the Family Court in that case directed the employer of the petitioner i.e. TISCO Colliery Department to deposit half of the salary of the petitioner in the account of opposite party no.2. He further submits that against the said order, the petitioner herein filed Revision Petition No.68/2001 and the case record was remitted back to hear again and finally Miscellaneous Case No.12/1999 was filed before the Court of the learned C.J.M., Koderma and in the said case, agreement dated 24.06.1988 entered between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 was filed before the learned C.J.M., Koderma. He submits that there were several terms incorporated in the agreement including the expenses of marriage of daughters to be borne by the petitioner. He submits that there were several terms incorporated in the agreement including the expenses of marriage of daughters to be borne by the petitioner. He also submits that the learned C.J.M., Koderma vide order dated 26.07.2005 ordered for enforcement of agreement entered between the parties and also ordered in favour of opposite party no.2 to get half salary of the petitioner and subsequently vide order dated 28.07.2005 directed to issue a letter to Senior Divisional Manager (P&A) TISCO, West Bokaro Colliery, Ghato, Hazaribagh for deducting half salary of the petitioner and credit the same in the account of opposite party no.2. He submits that in light of the said order, regularly half of the salary was deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the same was credited in the account of opposite party no.2. He next submits that the petitioner was superannuated from his service on completion of 60 years of age and, thereafter, he was not receiving any salary and half of the salary was not credited in the account of opposite party no.2. He further submits that when the amount was not credited in the account of opposite party no.2, she filed several representations before the Management of TISCO. He submits that thereafter a petition under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter the said maintenance alteration case has been filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for alteration in the maintenance order dated 26.07.2005 passed by the learned C.J.M., Koderma in Miscellaneous Case No.12/1999 before the learned Family Court, Koderma. He submits that the said petition has been allowed by the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma and he has altered the earlier direction by way of substituting it in the form that the petitioner will pay half of his retiral benefits and half of the pension amount to the opposite party no.2 and the daughters from the month of his retirement i.e. October, 2020. He advanced his arguments by submitting that the petitioner is superannuated and he has got no means. He further submits that due to the petition filed by opposite party no.2, the payment of retiral benefits has been paid belatedly. He advanced his arguments by submitting that the petitioner is superannuated and he has got no means. He further submits that due to the petition filed by opposite party no.2, the payment of retiral benefits has been paid belatedly. He submits that much amount has been credited in the account of opposite party no.2 and in view of that, the petitioner is not in a position to pay any amount to opposite party no.2 save and except percentage of pension amount which the petitioner is receiving. He submits that the unmarried major daughters are not entitled for maintenance. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy , 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 375 . He refers paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “ 16. The review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent-wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 02.02.2015 awarding a maintenance of Rs.16,000/-to the respondent-wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant-husband was getting a net salary of Rs.63,842/-after deduction ofRs.24,000/-on account of GPF and Rs.12,000/-towards income-tax. In February, 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs.95,527/-. Following Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC129, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February, 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000/-per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February, 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000/-per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs.23,000/-to Rs.20,000/-per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and son.” Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to release the maintenance amount in that case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jyoti @ Gayatri v. Rohit Sharma @ Santosh Sharma , 2022 0 Supreme (Del) 488 (Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 56/2018) . He refers paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment, which read as under: “ 27. The change of circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 127 Cr.P.C. is a comprehensive phrase which also includes change of circumstances of husband. The amount of maintenance once fixed under section125(1) Cr.P.C. is not something which can be taken to be a blanket liability for all times to come. It is subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or decreased as per the altered circumstances. Further, the circumstances alleged by the revisionist/wife already existed at the time of passing the original maintenance judgment; therefore, proof of such circumstances cannot form the basis for altering the amount of maintenance under sub-section (1) of Section 127 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to prove that there has been change in circumstances that would warrant an enhancement in maintenance. 28. In the present case, the revisionist submitted that the respondent is man of sufficient means and earning Rs.82,000/- per month, but she has not placed on record any documents to assess his exact income and to establish that the he is earning such handsome amount of money. 28. In the present case, the revisionist submitted that the respondent is man of sufficient means and earning Rs.82,000/- per month, but she has not placed on record any documents to assess his exact income and to establish that the he is earning such handsome amount of money. Even this Court does not find any material(s) on record to ascertain the exact income of the respondent nor is there any change in circumstance.” Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the circumstances of both the parties are required to be seen. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and others in Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2022 . Relying on this judgment, he submits that in the facts of that case, the Coordinate Bench has remanded the matter to decide the case afresh on the ground that assets and liabilities have not been filed by the parties and that is in violation in light of the judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324 . On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 6. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that opposite party no.2 and her two daughters are entitled for the maintenance. He submits that admittedly divorce has not taken place and in spite of that, the petitioner is residing along with another woman. He further submits that opposite party no.2 has taken all pain in looking after her daughters and she somehow managed the things by way of taking loan from the relatives and solemnized marriage of three daughters, however, one daughter is still not married and she is pursuing her studies. He draws attention of the Court to the agreement reached between the petitioner and opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure-6 and submits that the petitioner has given undertaking in the said agreement that he will take care of opposite party no.2 and the daughters and the daughters are also entitled for share of income and ancestral property of the petitioner as per the Hindu law. He submits that in the said agreement, the petitioner has also undertaken that he will bear the expenses of marriage of four daughters. He submits that in the said agreement, the petitioner has also undertaken that he will bear the expenses of marriage of four daughters. He also submits that the said petition has been filed by the opposite party no.2 only and the daughters have not filed the said petition and considering liability upon the opposite party no.2, the learned Court has passed the said order. He further submits that in light of the agreement, which is binding in nature, the petitioner is also bound to maintain the wife. He submits that the marriage has not been dissolved and during subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner resides with another woman. He submits that merely by way of filing supplementary affidavit saying that the entire amount has been exhausted, the petitioner cannot be exonerated. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Court has rightly passed the order. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Court. It is an admitted position that opposite party no.2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and out of wedlock four daughters have born and it has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both are residing separately and he has also not denied the fact that opposite party no.2 has taken care of four daughters and solemnized marriage of three daughters and one daughter is still pursuing her studies. 8. The petition filed under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. was withdrawn and subsequently compromise petition was filed in Maintenance Case No.12/1999 and on the basis of the compromise, the learned C.J.M., Koderma vide order dated 26.07.2005 directed the petitioner to pay half of salary to opposite party no.2 considering liability of opposite party no.2 and in light of further order, half of the salary was being credited in the account of opposite party no.2. Subsequently, the petitioner herein superannuated in the month of October, 2020 and, thereafter, opposite party no.2 was not receiving any amount and thus she filed several representations before the Management of TISCO. Subsequently, the petitioner herein superannuated in the month of October, 2020 and, thereafter, opposite party no.2 was not receiving any amount and thus she filed several representations before the Management of TISCO. In this background, Maintenance Alteration Case No.01/2021 was filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and by the impugned order, the learned Court has been pleased to alter earlier order and directed the petitioner to pay half of the retiral benefits and half pension amount to opposite party no.2 from the month of his retirement i.e. October, 2020. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not taken care of his four daughters and opposite party no.2 has taken all pain to maintain the daughters including the marriage of three daughters. The petitioner herein has appeared in that Maintenance Alteration Case and admitted the facts that half of the salary was being paid to opposite party no.2 and he has further admitted that he has retired and as such no maintenance amount is being paid to opposite party no.2 in view of the aforesaid order and he has also stated that petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 10. The learned Court has framed two issues to decide the case and all these facts have been considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma that the marriage of the daughters have been solemnized by opposite party no.2 by taking loan and agreement was entered between the parties wherein the petitioner has admitted that he will take care of the wife and children and the daughters will also be entitled for property of the petitioner including ancestral property. Admittedly, opposite party no.2 is living separately since 2016 and that has also been supported by P.W.2. The petitioner herein was examined as O.P.W.1 before the learned Court and he admitted that he has retired and in view of that he is not paying any amount and retiral benefits has also not been paid to the petitioner due to the application made by opposite party no.2. Further, the petitioner has also admitted in the evidence that no divorce has been taken and he has further admitted that his fourth daughter is aged about 24-25 years and he has also stated that he knows that opposite party no.2 remains ill. Further, the petitioner has also admitted in the evidence that no divorce has been taken and he has further admitted that his fourth daughter is aged about 24-25 years and he has also stated that he knows that opposite party no.2 remains ill. In this background, the learned Court has passed the said order to pay half of the retiral benefits and half pension amount to opposite party no.2. 11. In view of all these facts, which have been considered by the learned Court, it transpires that the learned Court has found that there is change in the circumstance of the parties and he has further considered that if the changed circumstance is there, either in favour of the husband or wife, the order can be altered and, in that background, the said order has been passed. The learned Court has rightly held that the petitioner herein cannot shirk away from his liability to maintain legally wedded wife and unmarried daughter that too only on the ground that he has retired. The agreement entered between them on 24.06.1988 shows that the petitioner has undertaken his liability to maintain his wife and his daughters born out from conjugal right and these facts have also been admitted in the evidence of the petitioner before the learned Court. 12. Section 127 Cr.P.C. is meant for alteration of the order of maintenance in the changed circumstance. The Court is required to consider the changed circumstances of both the sides i.e. husband and wife and that has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jyoti @ Gayatri v. Rohit Sharma @ Santosh Sharma (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, there was nothing on the record to suggest what is the changed circumstances to enhance the maintenance and in that view of the matter, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has passed the order. So far as the case in hand is concerned, in light of the above facts, there are evidences to suggest that there are changed circumstances that the petitioner was further not paying maintenance even he has not shown his bona fide by way of referring one time settlement and in view of that, the judgment passed in the case of Jyoti @ Gayatri v. Rohit Sharma @ Santosh Sharma (supra) is not helping the petitioner. 13. 13. So far as the judgment passed in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (supra) is concerned, in that case 25% was directed to pay out of salary and this fact is not here in the present case, however in that case agreement between the husband and wife was also not there and in view of that, the said order was passed and, as such, the said judgment is also not helping the petitioner. 14. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sandeep Prasad v. State of Jharkhand (supra) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, in that case ex-parte order was passed by the learned Family Court and the learned Coordinate Bench has found that the materials were not there in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and in view of that, the said judgment has been passed. The facts of the present case, as discussed herein above are otherwise and in view of that, the said judgment is also not helping the petitioner. 15. A dignified life after separation is a right not a handout. The retirement is no shield for an estranged spouse to evade responsibility. The maintenance is not charity but a legal right aimed at preserving the dignity and lifestyle akin to that enjoyed during the marriage, with due consideration to inflation and evolving social standards. 16. The expression ‘change in the circumstances’ ordinarily implies a change in the material circumstances of the party, his property or otherwise, the increase or decrease of his liabilities and so forth. The ‘change in the circumstances’ means change in the existence of circumstances of the party paying or receiving the allowance, which would justify an increase or decrease of the amount of the monthly payment originally fixed. The ‘circumstances’ contemplated must include financial circumstances, and in that view, the inquiry as to the change of circumstances must extend to a change of financial circumstances of the wife. The Court 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 Court 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 growth of the child, or the birth of another child, or the death of a child is a change in the circumstances. The rise in the cost of living is such a change. The advance in age of the child is a fact that the children are grown up and are no longer unable to maintain themselves amounts to a change in the circumstances. The change of circumstance as envisaged in Section 127 Cr.P.C. contemplates not only change in relation to wife, but also the husband opposite party. When the husband begins to earn more the wife can apply under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. for increasing the rate of maintenance. Similarly, when the wife begins to earn, the husband can approach the Magistrate under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. for reducing the amount of maintenance. In light of the above, only factor under the said Section is to find out what are the change in the circumstances. 17. What has been discussed herein above in light of the facts of the present case, which is not in dispute, the Court has come to definite conclusion that there is change in the circumstances. The petitioner being the husband and in light of the agreement, is bound to maintain the wife and considering all these aspects of the matter, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma has passed the order. 18. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a retired person and in that view of the matter, the learned Court has passed the said order. It has been pointed out in course of the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is receiving only Rs.24,000/- per month as pension. In that view of the matter, out of pension amount, opposite party no.2 shall be entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month from the pension of the petitioner. So far as direction with regard to payment of half retiral benefits to opposite party no.2 is concerned, that is not being interfered with by this Court and that direction of the learned Court is kept intact. 19. So far as direction with regard to payment of half retiral benefits to opposite party no.2 is concerned, that is not being interfered with by this Court and that direction of the learned Court is kept intact. 19. In view of the above, the impugned order is modified to the effect that opposite party no.2 shall be entitled to receive half of the retiral benefits of the petitioner and out of pension amount, Rs.10,000/- per month shall be paid to opposite party no.2. 20. The order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Maintenance Alteration Case No.01/2021 is modified to the above effect. 21. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed in above terms and disposed of. 22. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.