Point of law: Claim of maintenance by wife - Maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision is directed against an order of Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi dated 19.10.2019, partly allowing the revisionist’s application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directing the second opposite party to pay the revisionist maintenance in the sum of Rs.7000/-per month from the date of order. The revisionist seeks enhancement of the maintenance awarded, payable from the date of application.

2. Heard Mr. C.L. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Hakim Kumar Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2.

3. The revisionist, Smt. Sitara Devi and the second opposite party, Kamlesh Kumar, are an estranged couple. The parties were married, according to Hindu rites, on 17th April, 2009. There are allegations by the wife that she was subjected to cruelty, both mental and physical, in connection with demand of dowry. The details of those facts, that have been wholesomely set out in the Family Court’s judgment, need not be recapitulated. The reason is that the Family Court, on the basis of evidence on record, has recorded a finding of fact that the wife is living apart from the husband for sufficient cause. It is the wife who has come up in revision, assailing the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, to the extent it denies the wife's claim to a maintenance in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-per month, from the date of application. The husband-opposite party no.2 has not challenged the order.

4. The learned Counsel for the revisionist-wife submits that the maintenance awarded is way below than that necessary to maintain the standard of living the wife has been accustomed to in her matrimonial home. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted, during the course of hearing, that the husband is employed as a Class-IV employee at the Indian Air Force Station, Bamhrauli, Prayagraj and earns a salary of Rs.50,000/-per month. The wife is not professionally trained or otherwise able to earn anything for herself. She is entirely dependent for her sustenance on her husband. There is also a case about the second opposite party being possessed of ancestral agricultural land, which yields a handsome income. His total monthly earnings from the salary and land put together is claimed to be a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.

5. It is further argued by Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist that maintenance, apart from being grossly inadequate, judged on the standard parameters, is also awarded in error from the date of order, instead of the date of application.

6. The claim about the agricultural land has been denied by the husband in paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit, that he has filed in opposition to the affidavit filed in support of the revision. It has also been asserted in paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit that the second opposite party’s income, evident from his payslip for the month of February, 2020, is Rs. 24,931/-per month and not Rs. 50,000/- as alleged.

7. This Court has keenly considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties and perused the record, which has been summoned from the Family Court.

8. The Family Court, while awarding maintenance, has proceeded entirely on the basis of parole evidence of the husband, that he receives a monthly salary of Rs.22,000/-. The Family Court has not called upon or required the husband to produce documentary evidence about his monthly emoluments, which is easy to require production of, and would clinchingly show the husband’s monthly income at least from his Government employment. Before the Family Court or this Court, the wife has not produced any evidence to show that the husband has inherited any kind of agricultural land, that yields him periodical income, in addition to what he earns in salary, received from the Indian Air Force. The husband/second opposite party has placed before the Court, through his counter affidavit, a photostat copy of his p