Mrs. Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.—This criminal revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6.10.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court No.II, Kamrup Guwahati passed in Misc. Case 316/2014 U/S 127 Cr.P.C. whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the opposite party no.2 to pay the enhanced maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the petitioner (from Rs.1750/-) with effect from the date of passing of the order.

2. The petitioner filed a F.C (Crl.) 67/1994 in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court Kamrup Guwahati claiming maintenance from her husband respondent U/S 125 Cr.P.C. At the time of filing the case she carried pregnancy of seven moths and thereafter a male issue was born to her which was fathered by the opposite party no.2. The claim of the petitioner and her son was contested by the opposite party no.2. However, after long litigation i.e. after fighting upto the Apex Court for her maintenance the petitioner and her son were granted maintenance and ultimately petitioner and her son were getting maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month till her son attained majority. When son of the petitioner attained majority the opposite party no.2 filed application to stop maintenance and accordingly as per order dated 12.5.2014 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court stopped the maintenance to the child and petitioner has been receiving maintenance of Rs.1,750/- only for herself from 12.5.2014.

3. Thereafter the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 316/2014 in F.C.(Crl)67/94 on 21.4. 2015 for enhancement of maintenance from 1,750/- to Rs.7280/- per month with effect from filing the petition on the ground that the petitioner being a house wife having no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself with an amount of Rs.1750/-. On the other hand, the opposite party is a Lot Mandal having salary of Rs. 29,120/- per month and his family consist of two sons one of which turned major and his 2nd wife. That apart, the opposite party is stated to have landed property and from which he earned Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. The opposite party no.2 contested the case by filing objection taking plea that petitioner has own source of income earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and he has other liabilities to maintain.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Principal Judge, Family Court by his order dated 6.10.2015 enhanced the rate of maintenance from Rs.1,750/- to Rs.2,500/- from the date of order.

6. The impugned order of enhancement of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has been assailed by the petitioner by way of this revision petition on the ground that the learned Court has failed to consider the principle of law down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs Sahid Khan reported (2015) 5 SCC 705, Bhuwan Mohan Singh –vs- Meena & ors, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 and Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & anr vs Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 385, wherein it has been held that maintenance order needs to be a reasoned order and maintenance should be granted from the date of application and such maintenance allowance should be adequate and similar to the standard with which she would have lived in her matrimonial home, but the impugned order virtually denied the enhancement of maintenance of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner. So a prayer has been made to enhance the maintenance to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.7280/- per month.

7. The respondent herein filed affidavit-in-opposition resisting the claim of the petitioner on certain grounds that he was forced to marry the petitioner but even though he divorced the petitioner by sending Talaqnama but the petitioner filed the maintenance case for herself and her son and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed such maintenance. Thereafter, long litigation was prevailed between the