The court upheld the maintenance amount by considering the petitioner's independent earnings and long separation from her husband, and the absence of proof of the husband's exact income.

JUDGMENT :

These two criminal revision applications have been taken up for consideration together with the consent of the parties.

2. The Cr. Revision No. 919 of 2018 has been preferred for enhancement of the maintenance amount allowed to the petitioner in Maintenance Case No. 71 of 2016 whereas Cr. Revision No. 1217 of 2018 has been preferred by the husband of the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 919 of 2018 to set aside the order dated 08.06.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 71 of 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 919 of 2018 submits that the petitioner was married to O.P. No. 2 about 33 years ago and after marriage, she was subjected to torture and cruelty for want of dowry by O.P. No. 2 and his family members but the petitioner tolerated everything at her sasural and live there and in the meantime, she was blessed with two sons and one daughter.

4. It is submitted that about 13 years ago, the O.P. No. 2 performed second marriage separately and started keeping another lady at a secret place which was not known to the petitioner. In the month of September, 2013 she went to her maika with the permission of her husband and on return, she found that the said lady was in the house and on enquiry the O.P. No. 2 disclosed that she was her second wife. It is submitted that when the petitioner raised a protest against such act of O.P. No. 2, she was ousted from the house after depriving her of her private belongings. She was ousted along with her children and since then she was living continuously through earnings of her labour work.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint case bearing no. 3424 of 2013 in the court of learned CJM, Vaishali at Hajipur and the same is pending adjudication.

6. As regards her claim for maintenance, it is submitted that the petitioner has no regular source of income and she has been suffering from various types of diseases. Her sons are not interested in taking care of her. The O.P. No. 2-husband has settled business of tobacco with an earning of about Rs.25,000/-per month and from the agriculture, he has earning of about Rs.5,000/-per month. In order to support her case, the petitioner-wife has examined herself and other witnesses who have supported that the petitioner has no source of income whereas O.P. No. 2-husband has income of Rs.30,000/-per month.

7. The O.P. No. 2 who is the husband of the petitioner alleged that the petitioner has been living in adultery and she had fled away from the house of the O.P. No. 2. He denied that any child is born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. His case is that he has been residing separately since more than 20 years. He has denied his second marriage and submitted that he is landless and unemployed person and he is not able to pay any maintenance to the petitioner. He, however, did not produce any witness in support of his statements.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that O.P. No. 2 had not brought any evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has awarded only a paltry sum of Rs.2,000/-per month to the petitioner towards her monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the case.

9. It is submitted that according to the evidence of the petitioner, the O.P. No. 2 had income from tobacco business and he earns Rs.30,000/-per month but the learned Principal Judge has not accepted the same. Learned counsel, thus, requests this Court to enhance the maintenance amount.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-husband in Cr. Revision No. 919 of 2018 who is the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1217 of 2018 submits that the impugned order awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month as maintenance to the petitioner-wife suffers from illegality and infirmities. It is submitted that the petitioner has concocted a false story. The marriage between the parties had taken place way back 33 years ago but after 2-3 years of marriage she had run away with