JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner; Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1 State; and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred to assail a Judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge no. 2, Nagaon, Assam [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 06[N]/2025. By the Judgment dated 04.08.2025, the Appellate Court had dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as the appellant against a Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in Misc. Case no. 54/2019. 2.1 The facts, in brief, leading to the institution of this criminal revision petition can be stated as follows : the marriage between the revision petitioner [hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’ and/or ‘the petitioner-husband, for convenience] and the respondent no. 2 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’ and/or ‘the respondent-wife’, for convenience] was solemnized in the year 2010. Out of the wedlock, a boy child was born to them on 05.07.2011. Due to discords and differences, the respondent with her son started to reside separately from the petitioner since the year 2012. 3. In the year 2012, the respondent-wife instituted a proceeding, C.R. Case no. 2108/2012 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [‘the D.V. Act’, for short] against the petitioner and other in-laws seeking various reliefs alleging commission of domestic violence upon her. Upon adjudication, the Trial Court by a Final Order dated 01.06.2017 had granted monetary reliefs under Section 20 in the form of maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 1,000/- to her minor son along with some other reliefs under Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 and Section 22 of the D.V. Act. The situation rested in same position for a period till 2019. 4. It was in 2019, the respondent-wife preferred another application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act against the petitioner-husband seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. Case no. 54/2019 before the Trial Court. In the proceeding of Misc. Case no. The situation rested in same position for a period till 2019. 4. It was in 2019, the respondent-wife preferred another application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act against the petitioner-husband seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. Case no. 54/2019 before the Trial Court. In the proceeding of Misc. Case no. 54/2019, the respondent-wife adduced evidence herself as P.W.1 and the petitioner-husband adduced evidence of two defence witnesses including himself as D.W.1. The Trial Court upon perusal of the evidence/materials brought on record and after hearing the parties, disposed of the application for enhanced maintenance by a Final Order dated 03.01.2025 granting enhanced maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to her son. The petitioner-husband was directed to pay the maintenance allowance from the date of the application. 5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Final Order dated 03.01.2025, the petitioner- husband carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal no. 06[N]/2025. The Appellate Court finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the criminal appeal thereby, affirmed the Final Order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the enhanced maintenance allowance granted to the respondent-wife and her son by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court are on the higher side. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Mohori under a Class-I-A Contractor, D.W.2 who executes works under the Public Works Department [Roads], Government of Assam. Before the Trial Court in C.R. Case no. 2108/2012, the petitioner admitted to the effect that he was working as a Mohori under a contractor under Public Works Department since 2008. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent-wife is the first wife of the petitioner. After the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife started residing separately, the petitioner entered into matrimonial relationship with another woman and out of the said wedlock also, a boy child was born. The boy child is also presently pursuing studies in a school. 8. While seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance, the respondent-wife in the application, had inter-alia stated that earlier maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- granted to her minor boy child was granted many years earlier and at that time, he was aged about eight years. The boy child is also presently pursuing studies in a school. 8. While seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance, the respondent-wife in the application, had inter-alia stated that earlier maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- granted to her minor boy child was granted many years earlier and at that time, he was aged about eight years. By the time the case, Misc. Case no. 54/2019 was decided, the minor son was studying at Golden Daffodils Academy, a private English medium school, at Batadrava, Nagaon. The respondent-wife had projected that the maintenance allowance should be increased appropriately as the monthly educational expenditure of her child including school fees, was about Rs. 3,678/-. Due to such increased educational expenditure and rising cost of living, the respondent-wife was also unable to maintain herself and her minor child with the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- granted earlier in the year 2017 on the basis of her application filed in 2012. 9. It is in admitted position that the revision petitioner-husband is presently living with his second wife and his minor boy child, who is studying at Happy Kids School, Panjabari, Guwahati, and separately from his first wife, that is, the respondent and her minor child. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim for enhanced expenditure for the minor child of the first wife has arisen due to his admission in a private school deserves to be rejected primarily on the ground that the minor child of the petitioner’s second wife is also studying in a private school at Guwahati, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and not refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. 2 and not refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Sub-section [1] of Section 20 of the D.V. Act has provided that while disposing of an application under sub-section [1] of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but is not limited to, [a] the loss of earnings; [b] the medical expenses; [c] the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and [d] the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force. A mandate under sub-section [2] of Section 20 is contained to the effect that the monetary relief granted under Section 20 shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The trying Magistrate has power under Section 20[3] to order monthly payments of maintenance. Under sub-section [2] of Section 25, if the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under the Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate. 11. If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman for the second time, it is open for the first wife to live separately from the husband. It is a matrimonial injury to the first wife caused by the husband. If the first wife lives separately with her minor child in such circumstance then the husband is duty bound to provide maintenance to the first wife and the minor child also. An able-bodied man is presumed to be capable of earning sufficiently so as to able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and it is not open to him to claim that he is not in position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to family standard. An able-bodied man is presumed to be capable of earning sufficiently so as to able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and it is not open to him to claim that he is not in position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to family standard. In case of a second marriage, the first wife is entitled in law to live a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband, even if she lives separately. The provision for maintenance allowance is made with the object of preventing vagrancy and destitution and also at the same time, to allow a first wife to live a life with her minor child by maintaining the same standard of living as maintained by the husband with his subsequent wife, if permitted by law. 12. While considering an application for enhancement of maintenance amount, the Trial Court can take into account the changed facts and circumstances and the rising cost of living due to rise in price index and increasing educational expenses, etc. to arrive at an amount, which has to be adequate, fair and reasonable and is consistent with the standard of living as like the standard of living of the husband. 13. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has taken into consideration the rising cost of living and constantly rising educational expenditure amongst other factors to reach a finding that the enhanced maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- for the minor child and Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-wife would be reasonable as such enhanced claim was made after seven years from the earlier application on maintenance and had been decided after about six years from filing of the application under Section 25[2] of the D.V. Act in 2019. 14. The respondent as the first wife of the petitioner, as alluded above, has the right to live in a condition of the same standard as the petitioner is presently living with his second wife and their minor child. The petitioner who admitted that he had been working under a contractor since 2008, had claimed that he used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month and the bald claim was not accepted by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court as the petitioner-husband had failed to lead reliable evidence on that count. 15. The petitioner who admitted that he had been working under a contractor since 2008, had claimed that he used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month and the bald claim was not accepted by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court as the petitioner-husband had failed to lead reliable evidence on that count. 15. The petitioner, presently aged about 44 years and admittedly an able-bodied man, is duty-bound to maintain his first wife and her minor son. Till date, the petitioner-husband has not sought dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife. It is not the case of the parties that there was/is any other order for maintenance under Section 125, CrPC. The minor child from the petitioner-husband and the first wife is presently studying in Class-IX and the monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month is found to be reasonable in view of the rising cost of living and educational expenses in the present scenario. Similarly, the enhanced maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- granted to the first wife of the petitioner by the Trial Court in the Final Order dated 03.01.2025 in Misc. Case no. 54/2019, is found to be adequate, fair and reasonable on similar ground and deserves no interference. 16. It is well settled that this Court as a Court of revision can interfere only if there is any illegality in the impugned order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not required to enter into re-appreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance and the revisional court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 17. When considered from the above standpoints, the criminal revision petition is found to be lacking in merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There is, however, no order as to cost.