Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, considering the husband's financial capacity and the wife's needs, reaffirming the duty of a husband to maintain his wife.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Petitioner being the wife of the opposite party, Ravi Kumar Mour @ Sanjay filed this Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Impugned Judgment dated September 4, 2017 passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 66 of 2009 (Sushma Mour Vs. Ravi Kumar Mour) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. By the said judgment, Learned Additional Principal Judge allowed a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/-per month from September 1, 2017 which should be adjusted with the maintenance amount awarded in favour of the petitioner/wife in other proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The background of the case for filing of this Criminal Revisional application is that the petitioner was the legally married wife of the opposite party herein. Their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and Customs on 23.01.2007 at Club Four Seasons, Natural Heights, 137, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata 700 052.

4. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner’s parents had fulfilled the demands of opposite party and his family members in the form of cash, jewelleries, ornaments, cloths etc. These stridhan properties were handed over to the mother of the opposite party. After the marriage, the petitioner was taken to the house of the opposite party situated at 7-H, Cornfield Road, Kolkata 700 019 where she led her conjugal life for a week.

5. During her stay, she was subjected to both physical and mental torture by the opposite party, who demanded further dowry and she was not provided with proper food or clothing and was also forced to do entire household works even in presence of servants, who were employed particularly for such household works.

6. The petitioner was taken to various locations where the opposite party had their residence-cum-hotels such as Guwahati, Delhi and Kolkata. However, the physical and mental torture by the opposite party and other family members were continued. Eventually, the petitioner was driven out from matrimonial home on 18.04.2008 and has been staying thereafter at her parents’ house ever since. During such stay at her parents’ house, the opposite party did not provide her any maintenance though he had sufficient means to maintain and completely deserted her at the mercy of her parents’ house.

7. The petitioner has no independent income to maintain herself. She was also constantly threatened over telephone by the opposite party, who warned her not to contact him otherwise they would not hesitate to kill her. Despite such threatening, the petitioner visited her matrimonial home at Guwahati on 27.10.2008 but she was not allowed to stay there. Ultimately, her parents and relatives had to bring her from Guwahati to Kolkata on 08.11.2008.

8. The opposite party did not also even hesitate to abort her pregnancy by giving her wrong medicine in the name of vitamin tablets. Due to such physical and mental tortures, the petitioner had filed a case against the opposite party and his family members being Case No. C/36115 of 2008 before the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the same is still pending for adjudication.

9. Petitioner also filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the opposite party and other fam