Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must reflect the financial status of the husband and the needs of the wife, ensuring adequate support for her living expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

1. Submissions of the revisionist as well as respondent in person are already heard. The parties have also filed their written arguments, which is part of record. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.

2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Family Court/FTC in Maintenance Case No.3016 of 2014 (Shilpy Sharma Vs. Rahul Sharma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/-per month has been awarded to the revisionist.

3. The revisionist is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded to her and payable by the respondent. The revisionist has submitted that she resides in district Chandauli (UP), whereas her husband Rahul Sharma is resident of district Ghaziabad. She has filed present revision with prayer for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.2,500/-per month as has been awarded by the learned court below to substantial extent on the basis of prima facie facts produced by the revisionist, and the amount to be awarded to the revisionist should be effective from the date of filing of application i.e. 01.09.2014, so that she may be able to live in the same status, as she was accustomed to live when she was residing with her husband. Her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 23.01.2007 at Baradhar Kaka Nagar, New Delhi and she was ousted from her matrimonial on 18.09.2007 from 808-A, Jivan Apartment Sector-6 Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. She further submitted that she has no independent source of income, hence she has filed an application for interim maintenance on 01.09.2014 in maintenance Case No.316 of 2014, wherein she prayed for grant of maintenance from the date of application. However, the court below awarded a meagre sum of maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500/-per month that too from the date of order i.e. 07.09.2016. Inasmuch as the Court below has not awarded any amount as cost of litigation and prevailing expenditure incurred by the revisionist to attend the court proceedings. She is entitled to get maintenance as per requirements and equal to the financial status of the husband, but the learned court below has failed to consider this aspect of the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that respondent in paragraph No.8 of his objection dated 29.01.2016 an application for interim maintenance stated that he received salary from December 2014 to September 2015 at half rate at the rate of Rs.17,890/-per month due to strike in the company. But in the judgment it is fairly mentioned that opposite party did not received any salary from the year 2015 to October 2015 and December 2015, this finding is against the record. The respondent has given different statements regarding his salary before the court below. The respondent has been drawing an handsome salary, and also he is having other sources of income, his monthly income exceeds Rs.4 Lakh per month. The court below has not considered the calculation sheet /statement of income of the respondent Rahul Sharma and papers submitted by him in Divorce Suit No.61 of 2008 as prima facie fact of income of the respondent. She also submitted that respondent Rahul Sharma despite having been married used to give advertisements on matrimonial sites showing himself as divorcee. He has been interested in having relationship with other women, as manifest from his facebook account, wherein he has offered “in an open relationship” and “interested in women and current place New Delhi”. He has been leading a luxurious life, he has himself shown his expenses in various heads, which is not possible to be incurred by a person who is drawing a salary less than Rs.12,000/- per month as claimed by him. He had engaged four lawyers in First Appeal No.278 of 2014 against dismissal of his divorce petition and comes with his father to High Court to pursue his appeal in AC coach of train. He has been given varying