IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of provisions related to maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, and Section 127 Cr.P.C. in determining the appropriate maintenance allowance.

JUDGMENT :

Surendra Singh-I, J.

Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Rajavtar Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. By means of the instant criminal revision, revisionists have assailed the judgement and order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar in Case No.269 of 2014 (Computerized No.UPMZ020018462014) (Smt. Shaily Mittal & others vs. Brijesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. By the impugned order, the trial Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the revisionist No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to the revisionist Nos.2 and 3 per month each, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionists have prayed in the revision for enhancement of maintenance allowance granted by the trial Court in their favour.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that before calculating the quantum of maintenance, the trial court has not taken into consideration the income of the opposite party No.2 (husband). It has also been submitted that opposite party No.2, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he has National Saving Certificates (N.S.C.), Rs.45,000/- in his PPF Account and F.D.R. of Rs.11,00,000/- but without considering the same, trial Court granted meagre amount of maintenance allowance to the revisionists.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial Court illegally came to the conclusion that revisionist No.1 did not prove the income of the opposite party No.2, in fact the revisionist No.1 by her oral and documentary evidence has very well proved that opposite party No.2 has huge source of income and also many properties. Therefore, the trial Court had committed illegality in allowing maintenance allowance to the revisionists. It has also been submitted that opposite party No.2 is a co-partner in his family business of Saree and he is earning half of the total income arising out of aforesaid family business, but trial Court has wrongly considered that the owner of the aforesaid business was his brother, namely, Rajesh Kumar Mittal and opposite party No.2 was working there as salesman drawing salary of Rs.7000/- per month only. It has also been submitted that opposite party No.2 has not filed any criminal revision against the impugned judgment and order, therefore, finding of the trial Court regarding the matter other then quantum of maintenance allowance to be payable to the revisionists has become final.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court:-

(i) Urvashi Aggarwal and Others vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal; (2021) SCC OnLine Del 4641.

(ii) Liaqat Hussain vs. Jainab Parveen and Another; (2020) (12) ADJ 638 (DB).

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 while opposing the criminal revision has submitted that under the provision of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, the revision should have been filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. He also raised objection that revisionists could have obtained the aforesaid relief for enhancement of monthly allowance from the trial Court, therefore, the present revision for the aforesaid relief is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. It has also been submitted that revisionist No.1 is doing job and earning monthly salary and has filed income tax return. The opposite party No.2 had filed copy of income tax return since 2006 and credited of salary into her accounts, but trial Court has not taken into consideration to provide the maintenance allowance to the revisionist No.1 against the provisions of law.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that opposite party No.2 is ready to pay educational and living expenses of his children provided it is directly paid into their accounts and he has already incurred expenses of Rs. 2,81,755/- towards Laptop, coaching f