The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the wife and minor child, and the court's discretion to enhance the maintenance based on the increase in the cost of living and the parents' equal responsibility in bringing up the child.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the order dated 12.10.2016 passed by the Family Court, Ambala whereby, petitioner No. 1-wife has been allowed maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till the period she remained out of job whereas, petitioner No.2-minor son has been allowed maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition, on the ground that the same is meager and insufficient.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that a marriage was solemnized between petitioner No. 1-Aarti Gupta and respondent-Sunit Kumar, out of which wedlock petitioner No.2-minor child was born. On account of differences that arose between the parties to the marriage, they started residing separately and a petition claiming maintenance was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife for herself as well as on behalf of the minor child, aged 06 years in the year 2013. It was alleged that petitioner No.1-wife was doing a job of Guest Teacher and was not earning sufficiently to support herself and the minor child whereas, respondent-husband, who was a Chartered Accountant by profession, was earning about Rs. 1 lac per month. The petitioners had prayed for maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/-per month.

3. The said petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was contested by the respondent herein by alleging that it was petitioner No.1-wife herself, who had willingly deserted him, while pleading that petitioner No.1 was getting a salary of Rs. 15,840/- per month, besides interest from the bank deposits whereas, his gross total income was Rs. 1,71,245/- per annum. It was further alleged that petitioner No.2-minor child had been adopted by the brother of petitioner No.1-wife and was residing with them, while contending that the said adoption was without his consent.

4. Evidence was adduced by both the parties in support of their pleadings. Petitioner No.1-wife herself stepped into the witness box as Ex.PW1 and tendered documents Ex.Pl to Ex.P15, Ex.P18 to Ex.P67 and Mark P-l to Mark P-56 into evidence. Since, she failed to conclude her evidence despite availing more than three effective, her remaining evidence was closed by court order. Thereafter, respondent himself stepped into the witness box as RW1, apart from examining Vikas Jain, Tax Assistant, Income Tax Department, Kurukshetra as Ex.RW2 and SI Sukhbir Singh, SP Office as RW3.

5. The trial court took note of annual income of the respondent for the assessment year 2015-2016, which comes to Rs. 1,94,710/- per annum (T16,226/- per month) but relied upon the statement of the respondent dated 22.12.2015 wherein he admitted that his monthly income is Rs. 19,000/- per month. So far as the income of petitioner No.1-wife is concerned, the trial court took note of the statement given by petitioner No.1-wife dated 06.05.2016 wherein she stated that she had not given her son to anyone in adoption and that she was working as guest teacher and getting salary of Rs. 21,000/- per month and she had been relieved w.e.f. 31.03.2016. But the trial court in para 10 of its order has observed that subsequent thereto she has been again appointed as guest teacher by appointment letter No.DEEO-126 dated 19.08.2016 and getting a salary of Rs. 21,000/- per month. On appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court came to hold that petitioner No.2-minor child is entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 2000/-per month from the date of filing of the petition whereas, petitioner No.1-wife is entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month, only for the period during which she remained out of the job. A liberty was also given to petitioner No.1 to re-approach the court for fixing of her maintenance allowance or its enhancement, as the case may be, in the eventuality of her becoming out of the job. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners herein have filed the instant criminal revision.

6. Learned co