The court emphasized that maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and should reflect the real earning capacity of the spouse, establishing the right to maintain a standard of living similar to that during marriage.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. This is an application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act filed by wife of the petitioner challenging an order of maintenance mainly against her husband, the opposite party no. 1 herein.

2. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah passed an order on 15.03.2024 disposing of Maintenance Case No. 317 of 2016 directing the opposite party to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per month in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the instant revision challenging the quantum of maintenance and stating inter alia that she is entitled to maintenance at a higher rate at least at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. From the pleadings of the parties and factual circumstances, marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.1 is not disputed. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.05.2012 according to Hindu rights and customs in the house of the petitioner. It is stated that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner paid dowry and other bridal gifts according to their ability, but when the petitioner went to her matrimonial home, her matrimonial relations started harassing and taunting her on the quality of dowry and bridal gifts and also demanded a Maruti Swift Car from her father. Her father was unable to fulfill the demand of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner went to her matrimonial home to settle the dispute between the parties amicably, but the opposite party no.1 and his family members flatly refused to keep the petitioner in their house and declared that they would give second marriage of the opposite party. It is also stated by the petitioner that though she is a literate lady, but is unemployed.

On the other hand, the opposite party is a doctor having M.B.B.S. and M.S. degree in General Surgery and D.N.B. (Urology). It is stated by the petitioner that the opposite party earns in lakhs per month. Moreover, he has 15 acres of agricultural land from which he has considerable earning. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for maintenance allowance from opposite party at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

3. The case of the opposite party, on the other hand, is that the maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner was allowed alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month upon an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a suit for divorce bearing no. 285 of 2013 pending in the same Court. It is also stated that the applicant is getting Rs. 4000/- per month on the basis of order passed in a case under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The opposite party also states that the petitioner in all lived one and half months approximately at her matrimonial home and she had an illicit relation with her brother-in-law, namely, Bajrangi Prasad. The opposite party further stated that the petitioner teaches in a private coaching center at Raxaul. According to the opposite party, he earns only Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/- per month from his profession. During trial of the proceeding under of the Cr.P.C., the parties filed affidavits of assets and liabilities. From the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by the opposite party, it is ascertained that he has a car loan of Rs. 7,23,000/- and a personal loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- for renovation of his paternal home. He also mentioned that his spends Rs. 12,000/- towards rent, Rs. 10,000/- towards household expenses and Rs. 10,000- towards tution fees, total being Rs. 32000/-. During the trial case, the petitioner examined witnesses on behalf of her, besides the affidavit of asse