The main legal point established in the judgment is that the wife, being gainfully employed, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1. Criminal Revision No. 1949 of 2009 has been filed by the husband challenging the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Case No. 6M/85 by which the amount of maintenance earlier granted of Rs. 100/- per month in favour of the wife has been enhanced to Rs. 3000/- under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to referred as the ‘Code’).

2. Criminal Revision No. 1974 of 2009 has been preferred by the wife against the same order challenging the amount of Rs. 3000/- per month fixed as monthly maintenance praying that the same be enhanced.

3. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision applications are as under. The petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 1949 of 2009 was married to the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 1974 of 2009 in the year 1979. Out of the wedlock two girl children were born. Later on, the wife moved out from the matrimonial home and started living separately with her father along with the two children. On 18.8.1986 on an application filed by the wife, the court awarded to Rs. 250/- as monthly maintenance in favour of the wife and her two daughters. Out of this amount Rs. 100/- per month was for the wife. It appears that the wife filed a petition before the District Magistrate concerned seeking half of the salary payable to the petitioner and consequent thereupon the Civil Surgeon started paying half of the salary to the wife which was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10195 of 2001 and by order dated 27.7.2009 this Court set aside the same holding it as illegal and without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the wife filed a petition under section 127 of the Code on 19.8.2004 which was followed by another petition on 31.8.2006 for seeking enhancement in the monthly maintenance. The husband also filed a petition for recalling/cancelling of the order impugned by which his wife has been awarded maintenance. The impugned order is a composite order on all such applications.

4. From the impugned order it is clear that Rs. 3000/- per month maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife which was payable with effect from 19.8.2004. The arrears of maintenance were directed to be utilised by the wife for the marriage expenses of the daughters.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband has submitted that the wife is gainfully employed inasmuch as she is a Middle School Teacher in a Government Middle School in the district of Banka and earns sufficient amount so as to maintain herself. It is thus submitted that as per Section 125 of the Code, she is not entitled to any maintenance as she would not come under the category of wife who is unable to maintain herself. In support of the contention learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 S.C.C 316, the relevant being at paragraph-8. It is also submitted that the wife had voluntarily and without sufficient cause withdrawn from the company of the husband and on this ground also as per the requirement of law, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is further submitted that the petitioner has since retired and his pension is about Rs. 10,000/- per month.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner at the relevant time was earning more than Rs. 20,000/- per month her prayer for grant/payment of half of the salary was in accordance with law and in tune with the ground reality. It is submitted that the wife does not have sufficient amount so as to maintain herself as well as her two daughters who are still studying. It is said that the money would be required for their marriages since they are still unmarried. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata reported in (2002) 5 S.C.C. 422 for the proposition that the maintenance can