The main legal point established in the judgment is that the maintenance awarded under Section 125, Cr. P.C. aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and the court must consider the totality of circumstances, including the respondent's obligations and the needs of the recipients, in determining the adequacy of the maintenance amount.

1. Petitioner, wife of the respondent, has been granted Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) per month as maintenance for herself and her daughter vide impugned order dated 19-2-2014 passed in Family Court Case No. 46 of 2013, by Family Court, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok. She has filed this petition for enhancement of the said amount.

2. It is undisputed that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage was solemnized on 3-2-2006, they have a female child aged about 5 years and the child is living with the petitioner.

3. The Family Court has held that the petitioner (wife) and her daughter were entitled to get maintenance u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as quantum is concerned, the Family Court, looking to the monthly income of the respondent, has held that Rs. 20,000.00/- per month would be adequate for the petitioner and her daughter, thus, the said amount has been awarded.

4. The respondent has not filed any Revision against the impugned order passed by the Family Court, however, it was brought to the notice of this Court that a proceeding for divorce u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is pending before the concerned Court.

5. Ms. (Dr.) Doma T. Bhutia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the amount awarded is inadequate; the respondent is working as Associate Professor in Medical College, he has sufficient means to provide adequate amount to the petitioner and her daughter, therefore, the Family Court ought to have awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000.00/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as was claimed by the petitioner. On principles, she cited two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : AIR 2008 SC 530 and Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : AIR 2011 SC 2748.

6. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, has opposed these arguments and argued that the amount of maintenance granted to the wife and the daughter is on the excessive side.

7. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

8. In Chaturbhuj (AIR 2008 SC 530) (supra), the Supreme Court has held that Section 125, Cr. P.C. is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable o maintain themselves. The Supreme Court further reiterated that the object of maintenance proceeding is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.

9. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar (AIR 2011 SC 2748) (supra), while dealing with a case of permanent alimony under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 25, it was held by the Supreme Court that as per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondents own income and other property and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. The Court considering such claim, has to consider all the relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It depends on various facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to see the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to the personal expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute.

10. In the instant case, the respondent is working on the post of Associate Professor in Medical College, Gangtok. H