The main legal point established in the judgment is that the maintenance awarded should be just and reasonable, commensurate with the financial status of the husband and the wife's ability to maintain herself.

JUDGMENT :

(Raj Beer Singh, J.)

1. Both the above mentioned criminal revisions have been preferred against one and the same impugned order between the same parties and thus, both the revisions are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned AGA for the State.

3. The Criminal Revision No.3043 of 2021 has been preferred by the revisionist/husband against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Room No.3, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No.129 of 2020 (Smt. Lata Rani Vs. Rakesh Kumar), under Section 127 Cr.P.C, whereby the maintenance granted to the opposite party No.2 earlier, has been enhanced from Rs.3,000/-per month to Rs.6,000/-per month. The criminal revision No.2680 of 2021 has been filed by the revisionist/wife against the same order for enhancement of maintenance amount granted by the Family Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/husband (opposite party in criminal revision No.2680 of 2021) has argued that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Earlier the opposite party No.2. has filed a case under Section 125 CrPC and by order dated 02.09.2003 revisionist was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/-per month to the opposite party No.2 and Rs.1,000/-per month for minor daughter, but by the impugned order said amount of maintenance granted to the opposite party No.2/wife has been enhanced to Rs.6,000/-per month without any just reason. Learned counsel has referred the impugned order and material on record and submitted that the Family Court has rendered finding that the opposite party No.2 was running a beauty parlour and that she is capable to maintain herself but despite that finding, the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance. It was pointed out that after rendering the finding that the opposite party No.2/wife is capable of maintaining herself, the observation of the Family Court that she is not capable to maintain herself is contradictory and against the material on record. Further, all the education and living expenses of the daughter of the parties are being borne by the revisionist/ husband from the year 2007. The daughter of the parties is studying in Canada and the revisionist is bearing huge expenses for her education. In his affidavit of evidence, the revisionist/husband has clearly mentioned about the income and financial resources of the opposite party No.2 and that along with documentary evidence, one pen-drive was also produced before the Family Court, wherein, it was shown that the opposite party No.2/wife is running a beauty parlour and that the Family Court observed that the opposite party No.2 did not avail the opportunity of seeing the contents of the said pen-drive. This fact goes to show that she has sufficient income by beauty parlour. The decree of restitution passed on petition of opposite party No 2/Wife has already been set aside in appeal. The oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence of revisionist/husband has not been considered by the Family Court. Referring to facts and evidence of the matter, it was submitted that there is clear evidence that the opposite party No.2/ wife is running a beauty parlour and she is having sufficient income and capable of maintaining herself but despite all these facts and evidence, the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 3,000/-per month to Rs.6,000/-per month and thus, the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It was stated that the revisionist/husband is continuously paying maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to the opposite party No.2/wife. It was also stated that revisionist/husband is continuously being harassed by the opposite party No.2/wife and she has lodged as many as 30 cases against revisionist/husband and made several complaints to various authorities against revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 /wife (revisi