IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Award of maintenance – Maintenance is neither a mode of punishment nor a measure of unjust enrichment – It is a social justice measure intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, ensuring that a dependent spouse is not left to penury and indignity.
(2) Quantum of maintenance – While mere capacity to earn does not disentitle wife from maintenance, Court is entitled to take into account earning potential, qualifications and past employment while determining quantum.
(3) Quantum of maintenance – While length of marriage by itself is not determinative of entitlement under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is nonetheless a relevant factor in assessing nature of dependency – Law does not envisage that because husband earns more, wife must necessarily receive half or a substantial fraction thereof – Such approach would amount to converting maintenance proceedings into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property, which is impermissible.

ORDER

By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court No.1, District Sriganganagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 07/2020, whereby the learned Court has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded a meager sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application, which is grossly inadequate, unjust, and disproportionate to the needs of the petitioner and the income and status of the respondent, thereby necessitating the present petition seeking enhancement of maintenance.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner–complainant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, inter alia, pleading that her marriage with the non-applicant was solemnized on 02.10.2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Gurudwara Nanank Darbar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in the presence of parents and family members of both sides. The marriage was arranged through a matrimonial advertisement with the consent of both families. At the time of marriage, the parents and family members of the petitioner gave gifts, jewellery, and other articles, which were handed over to the non-applicant and his mother, and the dowry articles of the petitioner are still lying with the family of the non-applicant. It was represented that the non-applicant was in a Government job and was required to submit a declaration in his office that no dowry had been taken; believing the same in good faith, the petitioner executed a declaration on stamp paper stating that no dowry was demanded or given. It was further disclosed that the non-applicant was previously married and his first wife had expired about 5–6 years prior, while the petitioner’s first marriage had already been declared void under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act ,1955 by the Family Court, and all relevant documents were shown to the non-applicant’s family prior to the marriage.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that soon after the marriage, the non-applicant and his mother started harassing her for additional dowry, taunting and comparing her with the dowry articles of the first marriage, and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Despite intervention by her parents in October 2019, the harassment continued unabated. Owing to constant harassment, the petitioner’s health deteriorated, and during this period her mother expired on 27.10.2019 at Sriganganagar. Even at the time of bereavement, the petitioner was harassed, and on 29.10.2019, upon reaching Sriganganagar, fresh demands were raised by the non-applicant and his mother, including demands for facilities and a car. On 30.10.2019, despite intervention by the Panchayat, the non-applicant allegedly assaulted the petitioner in front of the Panchayat and deserted her at Sriganganagar. The petitioner thereafter lodged a complaint at Police Station Sriganganagar. A legal notice dated 30.11.2019 was issued by the non-applicant, to which a reply was submitted by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner asserted that she is highly qualified, being a graduate with B.Ed., M.Ed., and NET qualifications, but is presently unemployed and dependent upon her father, having no independent source of income. It was pleaded that the non-applicant is a Mechanical Engineer, educated up to M.I./Ph.D., presently working as Head of Department at the Institute of Infrastructure and Technology Research and Management, Ahmedabad, a Government Institute, earning more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs per month, enjoying government accommodation, other service benefits, and owning immovable property at Kurukshetra, Haryana. On the other hand, the respondent denied the allegations, claimed that the petitioner is earning sufficiently, and alleged cruelty on her part. After both parties led their evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 22.07.2024, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P