Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C should be awarded from the date of the application, and evidence is essential to substantiate income claims.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125 Cr.P.C, Section 127 Cr.P.C - 125, 127 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 and Section 127 of the Cr.P.C, which deal with the maintenance of wives, children, and parents. The court emphasized the importance of awarding maintenance from the date of the application and considered the financial status of the respondent in determining the maintenance amount. The court also highlighted the need for evidence to substantiate income claims and the scope of revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a wife, filed a petition claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, alleging desertion and neglect by the respondent. The Family Court initially awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month, which was later enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner challenged the increase in maintenance through a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the respondent's higher income claims and upheld the Family Court's decision to fix the respondent's income at Rs.13,350/- per month. The court also directed the payment of maintenance from the date of the application, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of maintenance amount, the respondent's income, and the date from which maintenance should be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application, emphasized the need for evidence to support income claims, and clarified the scope of revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court directed the respondent to pay arrears of maintenance and future maintenance in specified instalments.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.01.2018, passed by the learned Family Court, Karkardooma Court, Shahdara District in C.C.No.92/2017, wherein the learned Family Court has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the order i.e. 15.01.2018. The revisionist is the wife challenging the increase of Rs.3,000/- contending that sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded to her is meagre to maintain herself.

2. Material on record shows that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2004. Out of the wedlock a female child was born in April, 2005. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance contending that the family members of the respondent are harassing her and torturing her for bringing less dowry and that they have thrown her out of the house. It is alleged that the respondent had deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The petitioner in her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C stated that the total monthly income of the respondent is Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner claimed a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent.

3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, by an order dated 24.06.2013, in C.C.No.230/2013 found that the allegation that the respondent has deserted the petitioner and that the respondent has neglected to maintain her is correct. The Metropolitan Magistrate also held that the petitioner herein has no source of income, a fact which has not been challenged by the respondent. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while deciding the issue regarding the financial status of the respondent herein came to a conclusion that neither is there any documentary evidence on record nor any witness has been examined to prove that the respondent was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The Metropolitan Magistrate fixed the income of the respondent at Rs.8,000/- per month, which was the wage for a skilled labourer as per the Minimum Wages Act at that time and directed the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as maintenance from the date of the order i.e. 24.06.2013.

4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C in Novermber, 2015, claiming enhancement of maintenance. In the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C it is stated that the petitioner is completely bedridden and is only able to move around on a wheelchair and that too only with the support of her family members. It is stated in the application that the respondent is earning about Rs.25,000/- per month from his hotel. It is alleged that the respondent is also running hundred rickshaws and has income from agricultural land. It is stated in the application that the respondent is earning about Rs.2,50,000/- per month. The respondent herein in his reply to the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C had stated that he had suffered an accident for which he had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from his employer and that he was working as a driver and getting a net salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Family Court had directed the respondent to produce the documents of the charge-sheet to show how much injuries he had suffered in the alleged accident that he had to take a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for medical treatment. The learned Family Court found that it is very hard to survive on a meagre income of Rs.2,000/- per month with increasing prices of essential goods and therefore there is a need to increase the maintenance amount. Since the respondent did not produce any document the learned Family Court drew adverse inference against the respondent herein. However, since the petitioner could not produce any material to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was earning any amount from the hotel or has hundred rickshaws or has income from agricultural land, the learned Family Court fixed the salary of the respondent at Rs.13,350/- per