A husband has an obligation to maintain his wife and child despite the wife's income being insufficient for sustenance, reaffirming that maintenance awards must reflect economic realities.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.66 of 2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka whereby the learned court has directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month to the O.P.No.2 as well as his son O.P.No.3 who happened to be son born out of the said wedlock, respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be husband of the O.P.No.2. He further submits that O.P.No.2 has preferred a petition under section 125 Cr.PC before the learned court stating therein that marriage between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 was solemnized on 7.5.2019 at Simra, Jama according to Santhal Tribal rites and customs followed by Hindu rituals too. He submits that in the matrimonial home they were started living together and out of said wedlock one son was born on 20.8.2020. He also submits that the O.P.No.2 has also alleged that the petitioner and his parents started demanding Rs.5 lacs and one motorcycle however, the demand was not met with and thereafter she was put to face mental and physical harassment by the petitioner and his family members. When the situation aggravated, the O.P.No.2 left the matrimonial home. He submits that she has also alleged that the petitioner is in relationship with another lady and when objection was made by the O.P.No.2 the petitioner has misbehaved and with regard to the same, the OP No.2 has also lodged the case. He submits that she has stated that she is getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month from private tuition and she has demanding maintenance to the tune of Rs.35,000/- and in light of the aforesaid background, the petition under section 125 CrPC has been filed. He then submits that the learned court has not considered the income of the OP No.2 and has wrongly awarded the aforesaid amount to be paid by the petitioner which is against the mandate. He also submits that the asset and liability affidavit is not filed which is further violation of the directions contained in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another , (2021) 2 SCC 324 . On this ground, he submits that impugned order may kindly be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has found that only Rs.4000/- the OP No.2 is earning by way of doing private tuition. He also submits that the learned court has only awarded 25 % of the salary amount to the O.P.Nos.2 and 3 which is the right of the O.P.Nos.2 and 3. He submits that the petitioner is employed in the Railways and he is getting salary of Rs.42,405/- per month and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. In this background he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and finds that it is an admitted position that petitioner and O.P.No.2 are husband and wife respectively and out of said wedlock, one son was born who is the O.P.No.3 and the learned court while deciding the said application has appreciated the evidences laid down by the O.P.No.2 as well as the petitioner and in that background, the learned court has found that the O.P.No.2 was earning Rs.4000/- by way of doing private tuition and she has also stated the same in the application filed under section 125 Cr.PC. The salary slip of the petitioner was brought on record and wherefrom the learned court has found that the petitioner was gettin