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
16constitutional 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
2123 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
23Court 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