The central legal point established in the judgment is the husband's duty to maintain his wife and children, the discretion of the court to award maintenance based on the husband's financial capacity, and the duty of the court to consider previous orders under different statutes when deciding the quantum of maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.04.2022 passed by learned Judge Court No.4, Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.1292 of 2019, whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to wife and also to pay the said amount of arrears within 30 days and in default of the same the interest of 6% per annum shall be leviable.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State and Mr.O.I. Pathan, learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondent No.2.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. At the request of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant married with the respondent No.2 at Ahmedabad on 07.12.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.2 wife of the applicant was meted with physical and mental cruelty and she was severely beaten by the applicant and thereafter, applicant has thrown her out of her house and left her and now she is forced to live in her parents' house. She has no any source of income and she is unable to maintain herself. She is residing with the parents and she is living at the mercy of others.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court is improper, unjust and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. That, learned Family Court has committed a serious error by not considering the evidence produced on record in its true spirit and impugned order is passed without assigning cognate and proper reasons. That, Section 125(1)(a) speaks that the wife who is unable to maintain herself is only entitled for the maintenance but in the present case from the deposition of the wife that she is able to maintain herself however, she is refused to work and therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The court below has failed to given reason while deciding the quantum of the maintenance therefore no any reason has been granted for the deciding of the quantum of the amount of the maintenance Rs.12,000/- and also failed to considering that the petitioner is only a rickshaw driver, therefore the amount of the maintenance is on higher side. Even otherwise from the documentary evidence and oral evidence it is clearly come out that wife has made false and exaggerated allegation against the applicant just a view to get the handsome amount from the applicant and living her luxury life without shouldering the liability towards her husband as well as family members of the petitioner and petitioner.

6. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 wife has also preferred an application under the provisions of Protection of Domestic Violence Act, wherein interim maintenance has been awarded to be Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that though during the course of cross-examination, no evidence of income disclosing the income of the applicant has been produced, but without relying on or appreciating the evidence of income, the learned Family Judge has fixed the amount of compensation. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 stayed with her husband in her matrimonial home for only two months, and in spite of that, respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint against the family members of the applicant at the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad being FIR No.I-C.R. No.21 of 2019 with Ahmedabad West-Mahila Police Station- Ahmadabad City under Section 498-A, 323, 406, 294(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sectin 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 04.05.2019. It is further submitted that the applicant has no independent income, as he is driving a rickshaw and earning only approximately Rs. 8,000. In addition, he is burdened with an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month, which has become a nightmare for him and