IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children, and the court may consider the income of the husband and legal principles to determine the maintenance allowance.

JUDGMENT :

By means of the instant criminal revision, revisionists have assailed the judgement and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Judge Court, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.591 of 2015 (Smt. Aparna Kushwaha and another vs. Ashish Singh Kushwaha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. viz a viz amount of maintenance allowance granted to them and has prayed for enhancement of the same.

2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the revisionist No.1 and of Rs.3,000/- per month to the revisionist No.2 per month, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionists have prayed for enhancement of maintenance allowance granted by the trial Court in their favour.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that marriage of revisionist No.1-Smt. Aparna Kushwaha was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Rituals with opposite party No.2-Ashish Singh Kushwaha on 17.02.2012. Parents of the revisionist No.1 provided sufficient dowry to the opposite party No.2 in the aforesaid marriage. It has also been submitted that opposite party No.2 (husband) and his family members were physically and mentally tortured the revisionist No.1 for bringing of one Swift Car as additional dowry. The opposite party No.2 is a Director and Manager of the Koester Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Company and is earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Revisionist No.2 (daughter) is studying in SKD Academy, 2D/HS-1, Vrindavan Yojna, Raibareilly Road, Lucknow, her tuition fees is about Rs.6000/- per month, but trial Court without considering the income of opposite party No.2 passed the impugned order for granting meager amount of maintenance allowance. It has also been submitted that trial Court had passed the impugned order without considering the evidence on record and without application of judicial mind.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that opposite party No.2 and his family members did not physically or mentally harass the revisionist No.1 for dowry and they have never demanded any kind of additional dowry. The opposite party No.2 had resigned in the year 2018 from the aforesaid company and he could not join his duty due to numerous cases filed against him by the revisionist No.1. The opposite party No.2 is only the founder of the aforesaid company and there are four other members, who owned the company. The trial Court has only considered the profit of the company. It has also been submitted that revisionist no.1 is well educated and has done B.Ed, B.com and T.E.T. and she can earn the money for the maintenance herself as well as her daughter. The revisionist No.1 is not prepared to live with the opposite party No.2. On 21.04.2015, she left her in-laws house and living in her parental home along with her daughter, since then she has not returned to her matrimonial home. Revisionist No.1 has also lodged an FIR against the opposite party No.2, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Lastly it has been submitted that trial Court had granted enough amount of maintenance allowance and there is no ground to enhance it.

5. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Prajapati, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Prakhar Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

6. The opposite party No.2 has not instituted any criminal revision against the impugned order, thus the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding other issues i.e. revisionist Nos.1 and 2 being wife and daughter respectively of the opposite party No.2 and due to sufficient reason, she is living separately from her husband. Revisionist No.1 has no source of income for their livelihood. Opposite party No.2 being capable of maintaining the revisionists and he is negligent in providing maintenance to the revisionists has become final.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has raised preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court in view of the pr