IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that a husband has a duty to maintain his wife and children, and failure to provide adequate evidence of financial hardship can result in the court awarding maintenance based on the wife's demonstrated need and the husband's financial capability.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 27/12/2021, passed by the learned Judge of Family Court No.4, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the petition filed under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by non-applicant no.1 (original petitioner no.1) and directed the applicant (original respondent) to pay a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 per month to non-applicant no.1 (wife) and Rs.3, 000.00 per month to non-applicant no.2 (son) towards maintenance.

2. The facts are follows :

The parties in this revision would be referred to by their nomenclature in the petition filed before the Family Court. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and the respondent took place on 21/2/2017. It is stated by the petitioners that before engagement, the parents of the respondent informed that they do not want dowry. However, few days prior to the marriage, father of the respondent demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry. Father of petitioner no.1 refused to pay dowry, however he helped them by depositing Rs.2, 50, 000.00 in the bank account of the respondent. It is stated that on the day of the marriage, father of the respondent demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry from her father. At that time, father of petitioner no.1 threatened to lodge report to the police, if they persisted with the demand of dowry and therefore, the marriage could be performed. It is stated that after marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected petitioner no.1 to mental and physical cruelty for want of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 as dowry. They would beat her on that count. Petitioner no.1 tried her level best to convince the respondent. The respondent did not allow her to talk with the neighbours and her relatives on phone. She was not provided proper meals. Petitioner no.1 informed her parents about the mental and physical cruelty meted out to her. On 4/2/2018, the respondent and his family members quarreled with the parents of petitioner no.1. They insulted them by hurling filthy abuses towards them. They demanded Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards dowry. On account of failure of her parents to meet the demand of dowry, petitioner no.1 was driven out of the house in February, 2018. On 20/6/2018, petitioner no.1 gave birth to petitioner no.2. The respondent and his family members, despite conveying this good news, did not bother to come and see the baby. The respondent refused to cohabit with petitioner no.1. He sent false notice to petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 since then continued to reside at her parental house. The respondent has not made any provision for their maintenance. The petitioners are not in a position to maintain themselves. They have no source of income. It is stated that since the ill-treatment and torture became unbearable, petitioner no.1 lodged report with the police and on the basis of the said report, FIR was registered against the respondent and his family members for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is serving as a Manager in New Subhedar Co-operative Bank, Amravati and getting Rs.30, 000.00 per month as salary. The respondent and his family members owns agricultural land. The respondent gets Rs.3, 00, 000.00 per year as income from the agricultural land. His father is a pensioner. The petitioners are the only persons dependent on the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.15, 000.00 each towards maintenance.

4. The respondent filed written statement and opposed the petition. He admitted his relations with petitioner nos.1 and 2. He has denied the allegations of ill-treatment and torture meted out to petitioner no.1. On the contrary, he made serious allegations against petitioner no.1. According to him, petitioner no.1 has affinity towards her parents and therefore, she was reluctant to stay with him. Petitioner no.1 was behaving in very arrogant manner with him and his family m