The main legal point established is the consideration of financial capacity, entitlement to maintenance despite earning, and the factors for determining maintenance as per Rajnesh Vs Neha.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revision has been filed by the petitioner/wife against an order of interim maintenance dated 5th June 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in M. Case No. 22 of 2017, granting an interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- each for the petitioner and minor son), praying for revised and an enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was married to the opposite party herein on 26th June 2004 and the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs.

3. After her marriage she handed over all her stridhan articles to her husband and in laws, including her Adhar Card and son's Birth Certificate subsequently when he was born on 8th December, 2005.

4. The petitioner has been mentally and physically tortured since her marriage. The opposite party being an alcoholic ill treated the petitioner every day. Finally she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 20.04.2015 without her stridhan articles.

5. Several attempts of reconciliation was made by the petitioners family, but the opposite party and his family did not allow her in her matrimonial home and threatened her in her parental home that he would remarry and get more money.

6. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the phoolbagan police station on 8th July, 2017, and also moved an application under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure before the Learned A.C.J.M. at Sealdah and thereafter Phoolbagan P. S. registered a F.I. R. and started Phoolbagan P.S. Case No. 116 of 2017 dated 28th August 2017 against the opposite party and his parents under section 498A/406/341PC and sections 3&4 of the dowry Act.

7. The petitioner after being ousted from her matrimonial home is at the mercy of her friends and relatives and has to beg every single penny for her livelihood and also for the upbringing of her minor son.

8. It was under these circumstances the petitioner was compelled to file an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar on 7th September 2017 which was registered as M. Case No. 22 of 2017 (Khusboo Singhania Vs Praveen Singhania) and claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- towards maintenance for herself and her minor son and Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses for herself and her minor son.

9. The Opposite party filed his objection. Finally the order under revision was passed.

10. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision praying for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

11. Mr. Sanjoy Bose, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the amount of maintenance granted is grossly inadequate. The opposite party is the director of four companies and the order is totally without considering the actual financial situation of the parties and is thus illegal and bad in law, which needs revision by way of an enhancement, so that the petitioner can lead a life with at least the minimum requirement and their son can be properly educated. It is the opposite party's responsibility to maintain his family which includes his wife and son. The opposite party has the financial capacity to pay maintenance of such sum as prayed for so that the petitioner and her son can lead a normal and comfortable life matching the status of the opposite party's family. It is no fault of her that she has been driven out of her matrimonial home with her son and is not being allowed to continue her married life in spite of her best efforts. That the petitioner is leading a life of deprivation on being deserted without any fault on her part and fault on her part and as such the prayer for enhancement of the amount of maintenance has been stressed upon on the revisional application being allowed.

12. In spite of due service, the opposite party has neither appeared and thus not contested this case.

13. As seen from the certified copy of the order of the Learned Magistrate granting i