Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 11.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’ or ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Maintenance Case No. 153 of 2016. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court has been pleased to grant maintenance of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in total, being Rs. 5,000/- per month for maintenance of the petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- per month for maintenance and education of her minor son. The Opposite Party No.2 has been directed to pay the maintenance per month after deducting the amount, if any, which he has been paying at any other forum, from the date of filing of the application.

Brief facts of the case

2. Petitioner was married to Opposite Party No.2 on 29.11.2012 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that sometimes after her marriage, the behavior of the husband changed and he started committing atrocities upon the petitioner. The petitioner gave birth to a child but during the pregnancy period, because her husband was not taking care of her, she returned to her naihar. It is alleged that after birth of a male child on 09.11.2013, the parents of the petitioner took her to Mumbai to live with her husband but her husband was assaulting her, therefore, ultimately she was compelled to leave the residence of her husband at Mumbai and on 4th of June 2015, she returned to her naihar along with her male child. She alleged that her husband never took care of her and the male child and he neglected them. The petitioner claimed that she was facing financial hardship in maintaining herself and her son.

3. On the point of income, it is the case of the petitioner that her husband was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 70,000/- from his employment in a public sector undertaking, he has income from house rent and other properties. According to the petitioner, her husband has a monthly income of about Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the above background, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in the learned Family Court for maintenance.

4. The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared in the Family Court and opposed the application seeking maintenance. He alleged that the petitioner is of weak mind, indisciplined and selfish. He alleged that his wife was quarrelsome and assaulting him. The Opposite Party No.2 admitted birth of son from the wedlock but claimed that he was always providing monetary help to the petitioner. About his income, he came out with a case that he was working as an assistant engineer under Maharashtra Electricity Board and he was getting a salary of only Rs. 25,000/- per month. He denied the claim of his wife that his salary income was Rs. 80,000/- per month. Further case of Opposite Party No.2 was that his wife is well educated and presently she was working in a private firm. He also submitted that the cost of living in Mumbai is very high so he was unable to provide any maintenance to the petitioner even as she had left the house of the Opposite Party No.2 without any justifiable reason.

5. The learned Family Court framed an issue as to whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and the opposite party, who is having sufficient means, is neglecting his wife.

6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that both the parties have examined witnesses in support of their respective case. The marriage between the parties and birth of the son from the said wedlock are the admitted facts. In their deposition, both the parties made allegations against each other. On point of income, the Opposite Party No.2 produced his salary slip which has been proved as Exhibit ‘1’ (refer paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment). Exhibit ‘1’ shows that the O.P. No.2 was at the relevant time getting gross salary of Rs. 63,949/- out of which a sum of Rs. 31,346/- per month was being deducted against his loan and he g