Chattisgarh High Court
Ritesh Sharma vs Dolly Sharma on 17 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17765
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 67 of 2024
Ritesh Sharma S/o Shri Devendra Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o
Jorapara, Near Shri Ram Kirana Stores, P.O. S.E.C.L. Sarkanda, P.S.
Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
Dolly Sharma W/o Ritesh Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Gaushalapara,
Police Line, District Raigarh (C.G.)
.. Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. M.D. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.11.2023, passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. F-35 of 2020, whereby an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been granted as VEDPRAKASH maintenance amount to the present respondent from the date of DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.28 19:07:55 +0530 2 application i.e. 17.11.2020. It is also ordered that the interim maintenance amount, if paid, shall be adjusted towards the total amount of maintenance.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is solemnized on 23.11.2017 as per their rites and rituals and presently they are residing separately.
3. The brief facts of the case are that after sometime of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent was being harassing by the petitioner and his family members for demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs. When the respondent/wife refuses, the petitioner/husband started beating her, which became aggravated by the lapse of time and culminated into marpeet. When she conceived pregnancy, by the assault of the petitioner, she got aborted. When the respondent informed about the incident to her parents, they took her back to their house. After sometime, the petitioner/husband and his family members convinced and taken her back to her matrimonial house, but again started harassing her and treated her with cruelty. On 16.07.2018, they again beaten the respondent on a petty issue by which she received numerous injuries on her body and she made a complaint at 181 helplines. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members were called at Sakhi Centre, Bilaspur and on the assurance given by the mother of the petitioner, the respondent/wife withdrew her complaint and despite that their behaviour could not corrected. Again on 26.12.2018, the respondent/wife was thrown out from her matrimonial house after beating her and then her parents 3 have taken her back with them. On the next day, i.e. 27.12.2018, she lodged a report at City Kotwali Police Station Bilaspur, but they again asked for forgive and to save the matrimonial tie, the respondent/wife again went back to her matrimonial house. When she again conceived pregnancy, some complication arises and she has got aborted her pregnancy and advised to remain away from conjugal relation for about 06 months, but in between that period the petitioner/husband forcefully making physical relation with her. The petitioner/husband and his family members again started demanding Rs. 10 lakhs from the respondent/wife and unfortunately, she again suffered by another abortion due to the complication in her pregnancy. The act and conduct of the petitioner and his family members was not good with the respondent/wife and on 02.08.2020, the parents of the respondent/wife took her back with them and refused to return back her Stridhan and other articles to her. The petitioner and his parents came to Raigarh in the month of September 2020 and started abusing her and her family members and shown their attitude that without Rs. 10 lakhs, they will not accept the respondent/wife. On 16.09.2020, another report has been made by the respondent/wife to the City Kotwali Police and higher authorities and then the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner/husband.
4. On 17.11.2020, the respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 of CRPC before the learned Family Court, Raigarh for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/-. In the 4 application she averred that, the petitioner/husband is running a dance class in the name of Shri Kala Manjari Katthak Sansthan and having 05 branches at various places, where more than 100 students are taking dance education and the petitioner/husband is earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. In addition to that, the petitioner/husband is also working as architecture and interior designing, by which he is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent/wife is not having her own source of income and she was dependent upon the petitioner/husband. She is a deserted lady and facing financial hardship, therefore, she claimed Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance amount.
5. Replying the application filed by the respondent/wife, the petitioner/ husband has averred that after considering the financial and social status of the family of the petitioner/husband, their marriage was fixed. The marriage was solemnized without any dowry and the entire expenses of the marriage function was borne by the parents of the petitioner/husband. They kept the respondent/wife as their daughter and never treated her with cruelty and never demanded any amount from her. In the month of March 2018, a bank account was also opened in the name of respondent/wife at IDBI Bank, Sarkanda, in which the amount was deposited by the petitioner/husband time to time, which was being used by the respondent/wife. The father of the petitioner/husband was a senior officer of Postal Department and after considering the financial and social status of the respondent/wife, the marriage was settled between them. The 5 petitioner/husband is interested in classical dance and music, for which he got registered Shri Kala Manjari Katthak Sansthan, Bilaspur in the year 2009. The petitioner/husband is also an established interior designer, but he is more interested in classical dance and music and earning his livelihood by the same. On 15.12.2017, when she returned back from her parents' house, her behaviour was got changed and she started misbehaving. She used to go to Raigarh without consent of either the petitioner/husband or his parents. Since she does not want to carry pregnancy, she got aborted her pregnancy on her own will. On 16.07.2018, she pressurized him to get a chance for acting in the Chhattisgarhi Film to his younger sister and when the petitioner/husband refused, she raised quarrel and made complaint at 181 helplines. The Sarkanda Police inquired into the matter and found no offence committed by the petitioner/husband and advised her not to make frivolous complaint and then on 17.07.2018, she withdrew her complaint. Again on 26.12.2018, she left his house without informing to anyone and when the petitioner/husband returned on 05.01.2019 from Silchar, Assam, he was being called at City Kotwali, Raigarh and on 11.02.2019, she again came to Bilaspur along with the petitioner/husband. She again conceived pregnancy in the month of September 2019, but due to certain complications, she was got aborted. The respondent/wife was sent for a month to her parents house to take rest and then the respondent/wife started making allegation against the petitioner/husband and his family members and ultimately lodged a report of dowry harassment. The respondent/wife is residing 6 separately from him without any sufficient cause and despite making his various efforts, she has not returned back. A legal notice was also served upon her, through his counsel. During the COVID-19 period till the filing of the reply, his dance class is completely closed and he is having no source of his income. His father is a retired employee and suffering from cancer. His mother is also an elderly person and suffering from various ailments. He or his family members have never treated the respondent/wife with cruelty and never beaten her. He still wanted to keep her with him with full honour, but in the reply of legal notice, she refused to come with the petitioner/husband. The respondent/wife is having M. Com degree and professional qualification of PGDCA diploma. Presently, the petitioner/husband is dependent upon the pension of his father and facing financial hardship as he is having no regular source of his income, whereas the respondent/wife is able and capable to earn for her livelihood, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount and her application is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned Family Court has framed issue and after recording evidence of the parties, passed the order on 30.11.2023 and awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. The amount of maintenance is payable from the date of application i.e. 17.11.2020. The said order of maintenance is under challenge in the present criminal revision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the learned Family Court has erred in considering the evidence available 7 on record. They should have considered that the respondent/wife is residing separately from the petitioner/husband without any sufficient cause. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the requirements of Section 125 of CRPC. The petitioner is having limited source of income and an exorbitant amount has been awarded against him towards maintenance to the respondent, which is beyond his capacity. He would also submit that in the initial complaint, lodged by the respondent/wife, which is filed before the learned Family Court as exhibit A-3 to A-11. There is no allegation of demand of Rs. 10 lakhs and it is only made first time on the complaint made to the Raigarh police, for which the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC was registered on 07.10.2020. From her complaint (exhibit A-3 to A-11), it reflects that she wanted to reside with the petitioner/husband. Had the petitioner/husband treated her cruelty, she would not have shown her willingness to reside with him. This happens repeatedly, which itself shows that the dispute between them was not so grave, which culminated into their separation and they may resolve the differences. He would also submit that the petitioner/husband had served a legal notice to the respondent/wife and in Para 6, 7 and 8 he made allegation against her, which has not been properly replied in her reply to the notice and except the evasive denial, no other contention is made against the allegation made in Para 6, 7 and 8 of the notice. The respondent/wife has also granted the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month in the proceeding under the Domestic Violence and the said amount is liable to be adjusted while granting the maintenance under Section 125 of 8 CRPC. The learned Family Court has not considered that after 2019- 20, there is no income of the petitioner/husband and his income has been considered from the earlier income tax return, which is erroneous and therefore, the impugned order suffers with material irregularity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned order and submitted that though the quantum of the maintenance amount is on lower side, but the liability has rightly been held by the learned Family Court considering the status of the parties, their family background, requirement of day-to-day expenses and income of the parties. He would also submit that there is sufficient cause for the respondent/wife to live separately from her husband as she was subjected to cruelty from him. The petitioner/husband is having legal and moral duty to maintain his wife. Looking to the present cost of living, Rs. 10,000/- per month is very less amount. The petitioner/husband is having sufficient income from his profession and he is able and capable to give maintenance to the respondent/wife and therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court does not warrant any interference and the revision filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and documents annexed with the petition.
10. In the present criminal revision vide order dated 22.04.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, if possible and 9 to resolve their dispute amicably, but vide mediation report dated 10.05.2024, it has been informed that the mediation between the parties failed.
11. The respondent/wife has stated in her evidence that after sometime of her marriage, the petitioner/husband and his family members started harassing her for demand of dowry and they demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from her. When she refused, she was subjected to assault by the petitioner/husband. She suffered abortion of her pregnancy by the assault made by the petitioner/husband and his family members and then she lodged a complaint on 181 helplines. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband was being called to Sakhi Centre, Bilaspur and after giving assurance by his mother that, they will not repeat their act in future, she withdrew her complaint and despite that there was no change in their behaviour. On 26.12.2018, she was being thrown out from her matrimonial house after committing marpeet with her and then her parents took her to Bilaspur with them. Thereafter, on 27.12.2018, she lodged a report to the police and again the petitioner/husband asked for forgive and again taken her back. In the month of November 2019, she again suffered by an abortion due to complication in her pregnancy and despite advise of bed rest and remain away from conjugal relation, the petitioner/husband made physical relation with her and again started demanding Rs. 10 lakhs from her. She again suffered by another abortion on 30.07.2020 and immediately thereafter, again treated with cruelty. On 02.08.2020, her parents again took her back to them. In the month of September 10 2020, the petitioner/husband and his family members went to Raigarh and said that without Rs. 10 lakhs, they will not accept the respondent/wife and then the report for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC has been lodged by the respondent/wife. She proved the various complaints made by her at various places like; Sakhi One Stop Centre, Police Station Raigarh and Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and got exhibited the document (exhibit A-1 to A-
26).
12. **In her cross-examination, she stated that the expenses of marriage were borne by her parents. At the time of marriage, she was apprised that the petitioner/husband is an interior designer. She came to know after the marriage that he is having interest in Katthak Dance and running a dance class. She used to go to every function along with her in-laws, but her husband has not gone with her in the functions. On 15.12.2017, there was a reception party at Shiva International Hotel and from the whole day, there was a quarrel between them. On 15.12.2017, itself she came back to Raigarh, where she came to know about her pregnancy. When she returned back to her matrimonial house, the petitioner/husband had gone to Delhi. She suffered with abortion by the assault made by the petitioner/husband. Numerous incidents were asked from her in her cross-examination to show that the respondent/wife is not willing to continue her matrimonial tie, but she properly replied all the questions. Though she admitted that in her earlier complaint, she has not made allegation of demand of Rs. 10 lakhs, but she explained that the 11 petitioner/husband demanded dowry from her, which she narrated in her complaint. She denied that she deprived the petitioner/husband from conjugal rights. She also denied that the petitioner/husband had tried to take her back with him.
13. AW-2, Ramesh Kumar Sharma, who is the father of the respondent/wife has stated in his evidence that before the marriage he had given Rs. 3 lakhs cash to the mother of the petitioner/husband and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry items and ornaments have been given to him to the petitioner/husband. After sometime of marriage, the petitioner/husband and his family members started demanding Rs. 10 lakhs to start the dance institution and when his daughter refused to give them money, she was being assaulted by her husband and in-laws. She suffered abortion from the assault made upon her. On various occasions, she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner/husband and his family members. Every time, they convinced her and taken her back and again started cruelty with her. Ultimately, they thrown her out from her matrimonial house on 02.08.2020 and since then, his daughter is residing with him. His daughter is depending upon him. In cross- examination, but for trivial discrepancy, nothing could be extracted from him to shake his credibility. He stated in his cross-examination that, the petitioner/husband is earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from dance class and Rs. 30,000/- per month from architecture engineering.
12
14. AW-3, Omprakash Mishra is the mediator, in whose instance the marriage between them was settled and well known the affairs of both the parties. He stated in support of the respondent/wife and allegations made by her against the petitioner.
15. AW-4, Laxminarayan Sahu is the ward member and well wisher of the family of the respondent/wife. He too has supported the respondent/wife that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner/husband.
16. AW-5, Sunder Chouhan is the employee of Postal Department, who proved the documents (exhibit A-14 to A-22) which are the deposits of the father of the respondent/wife and proved the encashment of the same. He being the official witness, proved the transaction from the official documents.
17. NAW-1 petitioner/husband has examined himself and in his chief examination, he made statement as per his reply. He denied the allegation made by the respondent/wife and stated that he has not committed any cruelty with her. He proved the document (exhibit NA- 1 to NA-18). In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion given by the respondent/wife and stated that he is not at any fault in dilution of his matrimonial tie. He admitted that there was a domestic dispute between him and his wife. He countered the allegations in his cross- examination and made allegation upon her that it is she, who has committed cruelty with him. He along with his family members had tried to convinced her, but they could not succeed and intentionally lodged report against him. He denied that he is earning more than 13 Rs. 1,00,000/- from his occupation. He admitted his income tax return, which is exhibit A-24 to A-26 and further stated that after 2019, his income went in zero and therefore, he is not submitting his income tax return.
18. Be that as it may, there is allegation and counter allegation against each other regarding their behaviour, but the fact remains that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner. It is the petitioner's moral and legal duty to maintain his wife.
19. The scope and object of Section 125 of CRPC has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg' 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 9 and 10 of its judgement has held that:-
"9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. 1.
This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: 14
"In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)
16. "... Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."
8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v.
Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442] , while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)
3. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife." 1 (2015) 6 SCC 353
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762] , while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15) 15
15. "... While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."
10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , reiterating the legal position the Court held :
(SCC p. 320, para 6)
6. "... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within 16 constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] ."
11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v.
Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346] , it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".
10) This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the 17 wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."
20. From perusal of the materials and evidence produced by the parties, it reflects that both the parties have made allegation and counter allegation against each other, but their relationship have not been denied. The learned Family Court after considering the entire documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties, comes into conclusion that there is a sufficient cause for the respondent/wife to live separately from her husband/petitioner, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no infirmity or perversity, which dragged this Court to interfere with the same.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Sunita Kachhawaha and Others v. Anil Kachhawaha' AIR 2015 SC 554, has observed in Para 8 of its order that:-
18
"8. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court. "
22. While deciding the case, the learned Family Court after considering the status of the parties and earning capacity of the petitioner/husband as well as the respondent/wife and also the evidence produced by the parties with respect to their financial position, granted Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.
23. Considering the present cost of living, the amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. It is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. In the matter of 'Rajnesh v. Neha' 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 78 to 84 that: 19
"78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain 34 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.20
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property,
(v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source.
83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance :
"1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3.The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. 22
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act."
24. So far as the income tax return of the petitioner/husband filed by the respondent/wife and his yearly income shown in the copy of said income tax return. The income tax return is not the conclusive proof of yearly income of the petitioner for grant of maintenance amount and it is not an accurate guide of real income. In the matter of "Kiran Tomar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another" 2022 SCC Online SC 1539, in Para 10 of its judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"10 On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family 23 Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together. The two children are aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, and their needs have to be duly met."
25. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly considered the application of the respondent/wife and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to her, which is payable from the date of application. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife is granted Rs. 1000/- per month as monetary relief under the proceedings of Domestic Violence Act and from perusal of the order dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure A-5) annexed with the petition, it appears that the grant of interim maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- in the present 125 CRPC proceeding was considered, when the order dated 13.12.2022 is passed in Criminal Revision No. 1233 of 2022 and a comprehensive amount of Rs. 4000/- was granted as monthly maintenance to the respondent/wife. Since the maintenance granted under the Domestic Violence Act was considered and Rs. 1000/- is granted per month to the respondent/wife, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent/wife is entitled for that amount also as monthly maintenance amount.
24
26. No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stands vacated.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved