The court's decision emphasizes the importance of evaluating evidence in maintenance cases and considering the financial resources of the parties when determining the maintenance amount.

JUDGMENT :

Since, both these revisions arise from one and the same judgement, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. In this judgment reference to revisionists and respondents shall correspond to Criminal Revision No.413 of 2019.

3. The challenge in these revision is made to the order dated 04.05.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.03 of 2016, Smt. Nisha Kashyap vs. Manish Kumar, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar (“the case”), by which, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) by the respondent no.2 (“the wife”), seeking maintenance for herself and respondent no.3 (“minor daughter”) has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.8,000/- per month the minor daughter, as maintenance.

4. In Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2019, the revisionist has sought quashing of impugned judgment and order, passed in the case and in Criminal Revision No.259 of 2019, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have sought enhancement of the compensation granted them in the case.

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

6. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code by the wife seeking maintenance from the revisionist for herself and her minor daughter.

7. It has been the case of the wife that she was married to the revisionist on 23.02.2012, but the revisionist had illicit relations with his sister-in-law prior to his marriage; he continued his relationship; he started beating, harassing and torturing his wife. In her application the wife has given details of the incidents that had happened to her; finally it records that on 28.09.2012, the revisionist took his wife in his official residence at Haridwar. But again, he deserted his wife and continued the relationship with his sister-in-law. According to the application, the revisionist had neglected in maintaining his wife and daughter. He gets Rs.55,000/- per month salary from BHEL, Haridwar. The wife has sought Rs.40,000/- maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.

8. In his objections, the revisionist denied all the allegations. According to the objections, the allegations were falsely levelled; the wife would always suspect the movements of the revisionist; it is the wife, who had expelled the revisionist from the matrimonial house; once the court had sent both the revisionist and his wife to stay together, but the wife did not allow him to enter into the house, of which, a report was also lodged; the revisionist has also stated that the wife is an educated woman; she takes tuitions and earns Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month.

9. Both the parties adduced evidence in the case. On behalf of the wife, she got herself examined whereas, the revisionist examined himself. Parties also filed documents.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that the circumstances have changed after the impugned order was passed. He would submit that during the pendency of the case an application under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was pending between the parties, which has now been decided on 04.11.2021 in Original Suit No. 520 of 2016, Smt. Nisha Kashyap vs. Manish Kumar by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar (“the original suit”). Learned counsel would submit that in the original suit, the court has held that the wife has been unable to prove that the revisionist is staying separate from her without a reasonable cause. It is argued that the changed circumstances i.e. the judgment dated 04.09.2021, passed in the original suit has a binding effect. Therefore, revisionist seeks liberty to move an application for alteration of the maintenance amount under Section 127 of the Code.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent would submit that the revisionist may take the liberty to move an application under Section 127 of the Code, but he would submit that whatever statement was given by the wife