Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Common questions of law arises for consideration in these revisions, were heard analogously and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The imperative facts required for judging the correctness of the impugned order are as under:-

1.1 Non-applicant No. 1-Smt. Manju Dwivedi was married to applicant on 28.4.1996 as per Hindu rights and customs and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2-Naman born on 28.07.1997 at Bilaspur.

1.2 It is the case of the non-applicant No. 1 that after the marriage when she became pregnant, applicant started harassing her on account of demand of dowry and other means, by which she was forced to leave her matrimonial house and then she came to her parental house along with her minor son Naman and, thereafter the applicant did not take care of her and neglected to maintain them, leading to filing of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.01.2001 before the Family Court, Bilaspur.

1.3 The present applicant filed his reply to the said application and admitted the relationship of husband and wife between him & non-applicant No. 1 and also admitted that the non-applicant No. 2 is his son; and further pleaded that the non-applicant No. 1 is living in her parental house without valid and sufficient reason and as such she is able to maintain herself and is not entitled for maintenance; and lastly pleaded that by order dated 19.02.2001, decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted in his favour by the competent civil court directing the non-applicant No. 1 to live with the applicant.

1.4 The Family Court recorded evidence of the parties and by order dated 29.10.2003 granted the said application finding inter alia that the non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 have sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from the applicant, and non-applicants are unable to maintain themselves and granted monthly allowance of maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to the non-applicants from the date of order.

1.5 It is apposite to mention here that the order dated 29.10.2003 granting monthly allowance for maintenance was not challenged by the applicant herein and thus, this order of maintenance has attained finality.

1.6 Thereafter, the present applicant filed an application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - (henceforth 'the Act, 1955') before the jurisdictional civil court, which was registered as Hindu Marriage Case No. 40-A/2005 titled as Satish Chandra Dwivedi v. Manju Dwivedi. The said Court by its order dated 25.01.2006 granted decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955 in favour of applicant dissolving the marriage between them. Thereafter, on 5.10.2009, non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 filed an application under Section 127 of the Code, which is registered as M.J.C. No. 279/2009 for increase in the allowance for monthly maintenance on the ground of change in the circumstances.

1.7 The Family Court, by its order dated 22.07.2010 partly granted the above application and increased the amount of monthly maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- to each of the non-applicants from the date of order.

1.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order increasing the amount of maintenance. Criminal Revision No. 497/2010 has been filed by the applicant for setting aside that order.

1.9 Applicant/husband also filed another application under Section 127 of the Code stating inter alia that decree for divorce has been granted by the jurisdictional civil Court on 25.01.2006 and, therefore, order granting maintenance on 29.10.2003 be set aside, which was replied by the non-applicant No. 1/wife stating that against the order granting decree for divorce, an appeal has been preferred in the High Court of M.P. registered as C.A. No. 228/2007 which is pending consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It was further replied by the non-applicant No.1 that order granting maintenance dated 29.10