The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and minor children, and the principles related to the determination of maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr. P. C.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 08. 11. 2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby the revision petition filed by respondents has been allowed and maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month awarded to the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat has been enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioner solemnized a marriage with respondent No. 1 Rekha Rani on 11. 02. 2010, out of which wedlock a minor daughter Naina respondent No. 2 was born. The respondent-wife alleged harassment at the hands of her husband, the petitioner herein, for not fulfilling a demand to bring a car and on account of this, she was subjected to cruelty and eventually turned out from her matrimonial home in October, 2011. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal rights and the respondent wife appeared there and made a statement on 11.04.2012 that she was ready and willing to reside with her husband, however there was no change in his behaviour. She was eventually thrown out of her matrimonial home at the time when she was three months' pregnant. She gave birth to a female child at her parental home. On account of the fact that she was unable to sustain herself and her minor child, she filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The matter was contested denying all the allegations therein while submitting that the respondent wife had herself withdrawn from his company without any reasonable cause. It was stated that the wife was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month while doing tailoring work and taking tuition. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat on consideration of the evidence adduced held the complainant wife and the minor child entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month, respectively from the date of filing of the petition. Against the said order of maintenance, the complainant-wife and minor daughter preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Panipat, who enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-, respectively to Rs. 12,000/- per month to be paid to the complainant wife and Rs. 3,000/- per months to the minor daughter. This order dated 08. 11. 2016, was challenged by the husband by filing a petition before the High Court i.e. CRM-M-3058-2017, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.08.2017 on a statement made by the petitioner that efforts were being made for an amicable settlement of the entire dispute between the parties. After the dismissal of the said petition, the instant criminal revision has been filed with an application for condonation of delay of 310 days in filing the revision petition.

3. Mr. Animesh Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that since there were chances of settlement being negotiated between the parties and that is why the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. i. e. CRM-M-3058-2017 was dismissed as withdrawn. It is only thereafter when settlement failed, that the petitioner was constrained to file this revision petition. It is further contended that the petitioner herein is an Agriculture Development Officer and his gross earning is Rs. 49,339/- per month. The salary slip as annexed with the record as Annexure P-6 would show that after deducting an installment of Rs. 9701/- towards housing loan, income tax of Rs. 2500/-, contribution towards National Pension Scheme (NPS) of Rs. 4715/- and miscellaneous recovery of Rs. 1,000/-, net salary of the petitioner is Rs. 31,363/- out of which he is, in fact, paying Rs. 12,165/- towards personal loan, Rs. 3,656/- for second personal loan for financing brother's marriage and Rs. 4,200/- towards a car loan from SBI, therefore, after all deductions he is left only Rs. 11,342/- per month and, therefore, is not able to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance. It is also argued that the p