The quantum of maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be fair and reasonable, taking into account the standard of living of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT

S. G. Mehare, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The applicant Devidas hereafter will be referred to as 'husband' and respondent Anjali as 'wife'.

3. The husband has preferred the Criminal Revision Application No.276 of 2019. The wife has preferred the remaining two Criminal Revision Applications. The wife had filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'D. V. Act') bearing No.136 of 2013 was partly allowed. The learned Magistrate granted the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife. The learned Magistrate also directed to secure alternative accommodation for the wife at village Amrapur, Pune or at Bhingar, Taluka and District Ahmednagar on rent and on submission of the rent receipt, the husband was directed to pay the house rent. The wife had challenged the said order vide Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2016, and the husband had challenged the same order vide Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2015. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by a common order dated 12.03.2018, allowed both appeals partly and modified the order of maintenance granting Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition including the interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- awarded in Hindu Marriage Petition No.357 of 2013 and declared that the wife is entitled to get the enhanced maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/-from the date of interim maintenance and quashed the remaining orders.

4. Learned counsel for the wife has vehemently argued that each fact was proved, but the Court did not grant the relief of returning ornaments and articles. No appropriate reasons have been assigned for modifying the orders. The reason for refusal to hand over the Stridhan is illegal. A very meager amount of maintenance was granted. The Appellate Court recorded the findings on income contrary to the evidence available on record. The admission of the income of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum has been ignored. The wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The order granting alternate accommodation or house rent has been erroneously set aside. She had been cheated, and harassed physically and mentally. Hence, she is entitled to compensation. The maintenance amount should be quantified separately. The husband is highly educated; hence, an inference of his high income should have been drawn as he did not disclose his income. Therefore, both revision applications may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kasar for the husband has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are legal, correct and proper. The wife is also a Bachelor of Engineering and has now completed her LLB. She can maintain herself. The quantum granting maintenance is disproportionate. The Trial Court order is illegal, improper and incorrect. He prayed to dismiss the criminal revision applications of the wife and to allow his application.

6. The Court, in limited revisional jurisdiction, has to examine the error on the face of the record and cannot re- appreciate the evidence. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, both parties have led their evidence. The evidence was appreciated by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. There appear words against words. As far as the quantum is concerned, it was decided in the absence of any documentary evidence on the basis that the husband was working with one private company as a Manager and in Permanent Spoken English Classes. Considering his education, the Trial Court made the guesswork and held that the applicant could earn Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. Considering the standard of living of the parties, their source of income and expenses, the appellate Court quantified the maintenance of Rs.10,000/-and adjusted the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- granted to her in the Hindu Marriage Petition. Therefore, the amount of