The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of financial resources, liabilities, and social status in determining maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant revision is preferred against the judgement and order dated 26.04.2019, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 262 of 2017, Smt. Sheela Devi and others Vs. Haresh Ram, by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital (“the case”). By it, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) by the respondent no.1, the wife, seeking maintenance for herself and her two minor children, namely, Ms. Lakshita, respondent no.2 and Master Yashdeep, respondent no.3. has been allowed. The revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1, Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs.5,000/- to respondent no.3 as maintenance.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are in a very short compass. The revisionist and respondent no.1 married on 28.11.2004. They stayed together for a long. But, when the dispute arose, they started living separate. Two minor children, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are staying with the mother, the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code seeking maintenance on the ground that she has to maintain her two minor children, whereas, the revisionist is a man of means, who is employed as Teacher in the Educations Department, therefore the maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month be paid to them.

3. This application under Section 125 of the Code was objected to by the revisionist on the ground that after the death of his father, he has responsibility of maintaining his mother, sister and brother. According to the revisionist, the respondent no.1 has been staying separate without any reason. According to the revisionist, the respondent no.1 also works in a school. She is a qualified teacher.

4. In evidence, both the revisionist and the respondent no1 were examined and certain documents were also produced. By the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance, which is impugned.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance, as granted is on higher side. He would submit that the revisionist has responsibility to maintain his widowed mother and two brothers, who are younger to him and are preparing for the competitive examination. He married his sister in the year 2018 for which, he had taken loan. The revisionist had also constructed a house at Chorpani, after taking a loan. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 is staying in the house with their children.

7. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Smt. Raj Kumar and another, (1970) 3 SCC 129, in that case, in paras 21 and 22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

“21. A sum of Rs.250 per month for the maintenance of the wife of a person occupying the position of the appellant cannot be said to err on the liberal side. The High Court, in our opinion, very rightly fixed that sum making it subject to the limit of 25 per cent of the income as found by the Income Tax authorities. We have no reason to take any different view. Subject to our observation as to the determination of the income of the appellant, the appeal against the wife is dismissed with costs.”

“22. As regards the appeal in the case of the daughter, the High Court fixed the amount of monthly maintenance at Rs.150 till such time as she marries but so as not to exceed 15 per cent on the average monthly income of the father. No ground was shown as to why we should make a variation in the amount fixed in her case. We uphold the finding of the High Court in this respect. There will be one set of hearing fee.”

8. Reference has also been made to the judgment in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dev Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, in which reference has been made to the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar (supra).

9. On the other