The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, and reasonable expenses for maintenance, as well as the obligations to maintain dependant family members under the law, in determining the quantum of maintenance.

ORDER

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

'It is therefore most humble and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the record of the case may kindly be called for and;

. Quash the impugned/order dated 09-04-2021 passed by the Learned Family Court, Sri Ganganagar; and/or

. Remit the matter back to the Learned Family Court, Sri Ganganagar to decide the quantum of maintenance in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

. Pass any order which this Court may deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience may also be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2021, the learned court below directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- as maintenance to his wife and daughter i.e. respondents no.1 and 2 herein, respectively; and that, the petitioner is also maintaining his son, who lives with him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the averments made on behalf of the respondent no.1 before the learned court below regarding the petitioner's monthly income were not substantiated with adequate proof, and thus, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of actual monthly income of the petitioner, while deciding the quantum of maintenance payable by him to the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent no.1, over the previous years, filed countless bogus and baseless complaints and F.I.Rs against the petitioner. And that, subsequently that the petitioner and respondents arrived at an amicable settlement on 06.01.2016, wherein the respondent admitted that the F.I.Rs filed by her were false and baseless.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent no. 1 is an educated woman, with a Graduation Degree in Law and Computer Applications; and that the petitioner is also taking care of his old aged parents, who are suffering from serious ailments, which is taking a financial toll on the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajneesh Vs. Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 and submits that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, and thus, the order impugned herein suffers from non-consideration of such vital aspects of the case.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner and his family had repeatedly made demands of dowry in the form of money and other gifts, at different stages of the marriage, during and after her pregnancy. And that when her husband was travelling to Jaipur for work, threats to her life were made by his family, at which stage she approached the Police Station, Sodala and left her matrimonial home with her children, to Sri Ganganagar.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the learned court below has passed the impugned order after duly appreciating the evidence on record before it and upon considering the testimonies at length. And that the order for maintenance was passed after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was holding the post of Lecturer at Jaipur National University, Jagatpura, Jaipur with a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-

10. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case, and the judgment cited at the Bar.

11. This Court obser