The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance the maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on the income of the respondent-husband and the needs of the petitioner-wife and her family.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the petitioner-wife against the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 81/17 (96/11), whereby while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife, an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month towards maintenance was awarded. The prayer made in the present petition reads as follows:

"It is, therefore, prayed that the present Criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed the judgment impugned dated 07.07.2018 may kindly be declared illegal to the extent, the same awards the meager maintenance to the petitioner. The maintenance as prayed by the petitioner may be granted in favor of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that the marriage between the parties (husband and wife) was solemnized on 02.05.1995 at Bikaner, in which the father of the petitioner-wife, to the fullest of his financial capacity, gave Stridhan; out of the said wedlock, a son, namely, Kunal (petitioner No. 2) was born on 06.09.1996.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that immediately after marriage, the respondent-husband started ill-treating the petitioner-wife and the same continued for a long time, but the wife keep on tolerating such torturous act on the part of her husband; not only this, the respondent-husband deserted the petitioner-wife and his mother (mother-in-law of petitioner-wife) and started living with his (respondent-husband's) grandfather; since then, the petitioner-wife, her mother-in-law and her son (Kunal) are living together in the matrimonial home.

2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-husband clearly failed to maintain her wife (petitioner No. 1), mother and son, despite the fact that the petitioner-wife does not have any means to earn the livelihood to maintain her son and mother-in-law.

2.3. Learned counsel also submitted that for the purpose of maintenance, a monthly maintenance at least to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is required; thus, a prayer was made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, from the date of filing of the application, may be awarded.

2.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-husband also filed an application seeking divorce, but the same was rejected by the learned court below, and rightly so; but despite rejection of the said application, the respondent-husband is not paying any amount towards monthly maintenance.

2.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-husband is having a land, apart from an agricultural land in the name of his father. He further submitted that the respondent-husband is a partner in a marketing company (Pooja Marketing) and is working in a firm namely, Compucom, and from all the sources and assets, he is earning not less than an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- per month.

2.6. Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned trial court ought to have awarded an adequate amount of monthly maintenance to the petitioner-wife, instead of awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-wife.

3.1. Learned counsel submitted that since the very inception of the matrimony, the behaviour of the petitioner-wife with her husband (respondent) was rude and she even threatened the respondent-husband of the dire consequences, which compelled the respondent-husband to live outside Bikaner, while giving up his business thereat.

3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-wife, anyhow, under the false pretexts and manipulations, convinced her mother-in-law (mother of the respondent-husband) to live with her, with a clear motive to get possession of the respondent-husband's assets and property.

3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the peti