IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that maintenance must reflect the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the wife and child, ensuring their right to a standard of living commensurate with his status.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since both these revisions arise from the common judgment and order, they are being decided by this common judgment. Parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in CRLR No. 386 of 2021.

2. The challenge in these revisions is made to common judgment and order dated 23.10.2021, passed in Criminal Case No. 196 of 2017, Smt. Pooja Sharma and another Vs. Sharad Sharma, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as, “the respondent”) has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to the revisionist no.1 wife and Rs.15,000/- per months, as interim maintenance to the revisionist no.2 the minor daughter (Total Rs.40,000/- per month, as interim maintenance).

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

4. The revisionists filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is basis of case, seeking maintenance from the respondent Sharad Sharma on the ground that after marriage, she was harassed and tortured. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas the respondent has means. It has been objected to by the respondent. Parties led their evidence in the case. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the respondent has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent no.2, as maintenance. Both the revisionists and the respondent have challenged the impugned order in their respective revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that in para 11 of the impugned judgment and order, the income of the respondent is discussed quite in detail. In the relevant financial year, the respondent has taxable income of Rs.23,82,686/- on which, he had paid Rs.4,70,398/- income tax. His monthly income has been assessed as Rs.1,59,357/-. In view of it, it is argued that the revisionists have a right to live a life commensurate with the financial and social status of the respondent. It is also argued that the respondent has not been paying any amount to the revisionists. The revisionist no.2 is a school going girl. She has been issued various notices for default of making payments. It is argued that the amount of maintenance is inadequate and it should be enhanced.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the total taxable income of Rs.23,82,686/- includes awarded amount of Rs.1 Lakh, night shifts, payment for extra working days. It is argued that if all these are deducted from the taxable income of the particular year, the total taxable income would come around Rs.16 Lakh. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent has liability to maintain his parents and his divorcee sister, who has a disabled child.

7. Some of the facts are not in dispute. The revisionist no.1 is staying in her in-laws’ house separately in the flat alongwith the revisionist no.2. It is also admitted at Bar that Rs.3,500/- per month maintenance charges of the flat are to be paid by the revisionists, to the society, for its maintenance. It is also admitted that the respondent works in Noida.

8. It is true that wife has a right to be maintained commensurate with the financial and social status of her husband. But in each case, the income may not be divided equally between the husband, wife and the children. Various facts and circumstances are to be taken into consideration for the for the purpose.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the sister of the respondent is divorcee and she has received the permanent alimony. Even if it is so, the sister of the respondent is staying in her paternal house. Perhaps the respondent owes some duty towards her as well, which included somewhat financial assistance also, may be at times. It is also admitted that the father of the respondent is a pensioner, which means that as such, there is no financial re