The court emphasized the moral obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and daughter, remanding the case for a fresh order of maintenance in accordance with established guidelines.

Order :

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 12.01.2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Banswara, in Cr. Case No.29/2023, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C . filed by respondents and directed the petitioner- husband to pay total maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to respondents (Rs.8,000/- to respondent No.1-Wife and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2-daughter).

2. Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband, submits that the learned Family Court without appreciating the material available on record and without assigning any cogent reason has awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of the respondents. Counsel further submits that the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court is on higher side as the petitioner is not earning much to pay such huge maintenance amount. Further, the respondent No.1-wife willfully left the matrimonial home and is living separately without any reason. Counsel submits that respondent No.1-wife is a well educated person and is earning her livelihood by working as a teacher in a private school. It has also been argued by the counsel for the petitioner-husband that while passing the order of maintenance, the learned Family Court did not follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. { (2021) 2 SCC 324 } in respect of affidavit of disclosure of assets and liability to be filed by the parties. In such circumstances, the learned Family Court has wrongly awarded maintenance in favour of the respondents and therefore, the impugned order of maintenance deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Mr. RS Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the learned Family court after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of the respondents. The order of maintenance is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of maintenance.

5. In the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C ., the respondent No.1-wife stated that the petitioner-husband is doing private job and his monthly income is about Rs.60,000/-, however, no documentary evidence was produced in respect of the income of the petitioner-husband. In reply to the application, the petitioner- husband stated that the respondent No.1-wife is a well qualified lady and she is earning her livelihood by teaching in a private school, however, he also did not produce any documentary evidence to prove this fact. The learned Family Court after taking into consideration all the aspect of the matter and material available before it, observed that the petitioner-husband had tortured the respondent No.1-wife mentally and physically for dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial home.

6. In the opinion of this court, being husband, it is the moral and social duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor daughter. However, on perusal of the impugned order of maintenance, it appears that while passing the order of maintenance, learned Family Court did not follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Family Court for passing the fresh order of maintenance after following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. However, the petitioner-husband shall pay the arrears amount to the respondents, which is due till date, within a period of one month from today and he shall also pay monthly maintenance to the respondents till decision by the Family Court.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the revision pe