The court ruled that maintenance must reflect the full financial capacity of the respondent, ensuring adequate support for the petitioner and minor child, and should be awarded from the date of filing the maintenance petition.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.:- Present criminal revision petition is filed seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount as granted by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Camp Court, Pataudi, Gurugram vide judgment dated 06.12.2023, in case No. MNT-125/417/2018.

2. Facts relevant to the adjudication of the present case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2016. A male child was born out of the wedlock of the parties on 10.10.2018. The petitioner (wife) filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of maintenance against the respondent (Husband). While allowing the said petition for grant of maintenance filed by the petitioner, the learned Family Court granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor child, who is in the custody of the petitioner, from the date of passing of the judgment i.e. 06.12.2023.

3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Family Court, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Family Court, while assessing the amount of maintenance in the case has not adopted a pragmatic approach and has not rightly considered the income of the respondent and just and reasonable requirements of the petitioner to have the standard of life, at par with the respondent. It is argued that the respondent in his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, has disclosed his monthly salary as Rs.47,171/- (in hand). Whereas, his salary slip for the month of April, 2021 shows that he was drawing Rs.55,557/- as total salary and Rs.47,276/- as net salary per month. It is argued that the respondent has not placed his income tax returns to fudge up his actual income. It is argued that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error in granting the maintenance from the date of judgment instead of the date of filing of the maintenance petition.

5. Notice in the present revision petition was issued and duly served upon the respondent. However, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, even after affording sufficient opportunities.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case record carefully.

7. The learned Family Court in the impugned judgment has held ‘that the respondent on his own has not been able to prove that there have been any efforts from his side and he has failed to explain as to why the petitioner was not kept by him at the matrimonial house whenever she went to join his company. In such circumstances, on account of serious disputes, they are residing separately from each other. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is residing with the respondent willingly. Rather, she is compelled to live separately.’ In absence of any challenge by the respondent, this finding arrived at by the learned Family Court, attains finality.

8. The main challenge in this present revision petition filed on behalf of the wife (petitioner) is in respect of the quantum of maintenance as assessed by the learned Family Court, and the date from which the respondent was ordered to pay the maintenance amount, so assessed, vide the impugned order. Before delving into these issues, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that although, the minor child, born out of the wedlock of the parties, who is in the custody of the petitioner, was not impleaded as a petitioner-claimant in the original petition for maintenance, however, the learned Family Court, in its discretion, chose to grant maintenance in favour of the minor child also. The said action of the learned Family Court, being in furtherance of the benevolent objectives of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, cannot be impugned on legal grounds. A perusal of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unequi