The main legal point established is that the maintenance amount awarded should be commensurate with the income and social status of the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order 30.09.2022, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 32 of 2020, Smt. Mamta Bisht Vs. Shri Kailash Singh Bisht, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Almora (“the case”). By it, an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the revisionist has been allowed and she has been awarded Rs.2000/- per month, as maintenance.

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

3. The respondent has already been served, but despite service, he is not represented before this Court.

4. The impugned judgment and order reveals that the revisionist and the respondent no.2 were married on 15.08.2014. It was second marriage of both, the revisionist and the respondent. The revisionist had a daughter born out from her earlier husband. It is the case of the revisionist that after marriage, the respondent tortured her physically as well as mentally.

5. It has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent is a Government employee and he has other sources of income also.

6. The respondent appeared in the case and denied all the allegations. According to the respondent, the revisionist is earning Rs.30,000/- by selling vegetables and she has other income also. With regard to his liability, the respondent has written that he had taken loan for treatment of his earlier wife, which is about Rs.7 Lakh. He has other expenses also.

7. The parties adduced evidence in the case. By the impugned order, the revisionist has been awarded Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance is quite inadequate. The respondent has no other liability.

9. It is submitted that the respondent’s mother stays in his house in the village. The respondent has a son and a daughter from his earlier wife. The daughter is already married and the son of the respondent is employed.

10. It is admitted that the revisionist is staying in the house of the respondent in his village and she is also cultivating fields of the respondent. But, it is argued that the income from the agriculture in the hill area is much less and is not sufficient to maintain the revisionist. The impugned order records that the respondent gets Rs.38,936/- net salary from the Trade Tax Department. If the revisionist is getting some money out from agriculture, it cannot be considered sufficient to maintain her commensurate with the social status of the respondent. Even the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.2000/- that has been awarded, under the facts and circumstances of this case is definitely inadequate.

11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the revisionist is entitled to maintenance at Rs. 8,000/- per month instead of Rs.2,000/- per month as awarded by the court below.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed in the case deserves to be modified.

13. The respondent no.2 shall pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist. Impugned order is modified to the extent as above.

14. The revision is disposed of accordingly.