IMPORTANT POINT
Maintenance must reflect the husband's income and the wife's needs, ensuring she can maintain a standard of living comparable to that during marriage.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The petitioner-party-in-person has remain present before this Court on several adjournments. Today, she is appearing through video conferencing; she herself is placing her case before the Court and arguing the matter.

2. In Criminal Revision Application No. 776 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the part of the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 333 of 2013, stating that the amount of maintenance and the cost ordered is less.

3. The party-in-person referring to the facts of the case stated that the husband is in Singapore and earlier she was too residing at 5- 210, North Tower, 36 College Avenue, University Town, National University of Singapore, Singapore, along with the husband.

4. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner after marriage with respondent no. 2 on 07.03.2011 as per Hindu Rites and customs at Dholka, District Ahmedabad, had resided with the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his family members for about four days at Ahmedabad. She has alleged, at that time, they had not behaved properly with her and the ornaments, given at the time of marriage, were kept in the locker of in-laws, and the gifts received by the petitioner along with the cash amount of Rs.75,000/- were also not returned back to her.

4.1 Thereafter, the petitioner, party-in- person along with respondent shifted to Singapore, and she stated that instead of obtaining spouse visa, she was taken on visitor visa on 12.03.2011, and at Singapore she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the brother-in-law and his wife, and they had demanded dowry and continued to mentally and physically torture her. The respondent and in- laws demanded Rs.4 Lacs from the parents of the petitioner for sending the petitioner to Munich, Germany to accompany her husband, who was to go there to attend the conference, moreover, had demanded cash dowry of Rs.1 Lacs and other ornaments of Rs.50,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband used to sleep in separate room and did not consummate the marriage, that was creating mental torture, and, thus was not in a position to give birth to a child.

4.2 The petitioner has stated that she was taken to Indonesia and was insisted to eat non- veg food and consume liquor, and on resistance the respondent tried to kill her in presence of several persons. The husband threatened to give her divorce and also threatened to kill, if she would ask for any money. The petitioner stated that when she was in Singapore, the brother-in- law had made false complaint against her and she was subjected to physical torture and was given threat of abandoning and driven out from Singapore to India forcefully on 02.08.2011, and was not allowed to live with the husband and in- laws unless the demand of dowry got satisfied.

4.3 The petitioner stated that because of intervention of the relatives, the husband sent ticket of Singapore on 09.12.2011, and petitioner had gone to stay with her husband, but because of instigation of the family members, she was subjected to physical and mental torture for which the petitioner had to approach Singapore police. She was also subjected to humiliation by in-laws and was asked to consult a psychiatrist, though was not suffering from any mental problem, and when she refused the same, she was again driven out from the house of Singapore on 04.02.2012, and had returned to India in a helpless condition.

4.4 The party-in-person stated that Criminal Misc. Application No. 333 of 2013 filed before the Family Court, Surat on 27.06.2013 seeking maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was with a prayer of Rs.1 Lac per month as maintenance, as her husband is working as scientist in Temacek Laboratory at Singapore and was earning more than 7000 Singapore Dollars and had no other responsibility.

4.5 The party-in-person has stated that on service of notice to respondent no. 2, he