ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Revision No. 387/2020:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed, that this petition of the Petitioner may very kindly be allowed, and order dated 29.02.2020, passed, learned family court judge sriganganagar in criminal case no. 394/2018 shall be quashed and set aside."

Revision No. 582/2020:

"Therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the Revision Petition of the petitioner and order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 394/2018 titled as Smt. Dr. Kavita & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kamra may kindly be ordered to be modified by way of enhancing the maintenance as claimed by the petitioners in this application under Section 125Cr.P.C."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-Sunil Kamra submits that the petitioner is a Cluster Branch Head, Indusind Bank, Branch Bhagat Singh Colony, Alwar Byepass Road, Bhilwadi.

Learned counsel further submits that the husband has preferred the application for reducing the maintenance and the wife has preferred the application for increasing the maintenance. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has recorded the monthly income of petitioner-Sunil Kamra being Rs. 86,000/-, which is gross income and does not include the income tax deductions.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

5. The core question for consideration before this Court is whether the monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000/-, as awarded by the learned trial court, is justified or not.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following parameters in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503/2018) decided on 04.11.2020] for determining the quantum of maintenance, after considering all the factors:

"III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance:

(i) The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.

In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

On the other hand, the financial capaci