Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC is legally mandated for dependents, requiring examination of needs versus financial capability of the obligor.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, aggrieved from order dated 04-09-2019 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 37/2016, titled as “ Smt. Seema and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal ”, under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur.

2. By impugned order under Section 125 of CrPC, learned Family Court has directed present petitioner Mukesh Kumar to pay Rs. 10,000 per month to Respondent–Applicant No. 1 Seema and Rs. 5,000 per month to Respondent–Applicant No. 2 Manan Gupta, (minor son) totalling Rs. 15,000 per month from 27-01-2016 (filing of application), as maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition, submitted that the petitioner solemnized marriage with Respondent No. 1 on 29-04-2004 and out of wedlock, Respondent No. 1 gave birth to a male child, (Master Manan), on 18-01-2006. He further submitted that Respondent No. 1, dissatisfied due to her own issues, has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started to live separately from the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has tried to pacify the ego and aspirations of Respondent No. 1 but his efforts remained unsuccessful. He further referred to the proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 and submitted that she filed unnecessary charges alleging demand of dowry by the petitioner and also filed a divorce petition on false grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also submitted that the petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 to reside with him, but without any valid reason she is residing separately, which is sufficient to draw a conclusion that Respondent No. 1 has voluntarily withdrawn from marital ties.

4. Learned counsel further referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the father of the petitioner runs his own business in the name of M/s Ganpati Kitchenware but the petitioner is working as private labour, earning Rs. 6,000 per month, which is evident from the income tax return(s) submitted by him. He also submitted that Respondent No. 1 is earning her livelihood by a private job and also by giving private tutions. He further referred to alleged false evidence given by Respondent No. 1 and submitted that she has concealed the material fact about her income and source of livelihood, as she has not filed any affidavit or income certificate. He further submitted that Respondent No. 2 has attained adulthood during pendency of the revision petition; therefore, he is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. He also referred to erroneous determination of maintenance by the trial court and submitted that cumulative determination of Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance is far beyond the monthly income of the petitioner, and it is not possible for him to pay this amount to the respondents. He submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the ITR submitted by the petitioner is a conclusive document to determine his income. He also submitted that the business referred to by Respondent No. 1 belongs to the father of the petitioner and the petitioner has no share in the said business, therefore, the income of the petitioner’s father cannot be added for the purpose of calculating and determining maintenance. At last, h