1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No.883/2015 as in both the petitions, the parties are husband and wife.

2. Criminal Revision No.1164/2015 has been preferred by the wife Smt. Jaya Jain while Criminal Revision No.883/2015 has been preferred by the husband-Ashwin Jain, being aggrieved with the order passed by Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in MJC Case No.1144/2014 whereby the husband has been directed to pay interim maintenance to the wife @ Rs.8,000/- while the wife has challenged the inadequacy of the maintenance amount.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-wife has filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance alleging that after marriage her husband has started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, he illtreated her and ultimately turned out her on 2.2.2014 from her matrimonial home and since then she is residing separately. She has no source of income while her husband is a Doctor and he also runs a medical store and have 20 bighas of agricultural land and other properties and earns Rs.3.4 lacs per month. The prayer was opposed by the husband denying the allegation and submitting that wife is not willing to reside with him and she is residing separately without any sufficient reason. He further submits that he had taken loan and his wife was looking after the medical store. His wife is doing some job at Indore and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Learned Court below after appreciating the evidence on record has allowed the application and directed the husband to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-wife in Criminal Revision No.1164/2015 submitted that learned Court below has erred in allowing the interim maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month while from the material placed before the Court below it is clear that income of the husband is Rs.11,77,590/- per annum. It is alleged that her husband belongs to a high class family and his living standard is very high. lt is prayed that amount be enhanced and house rent be also awarded.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner-husband in Criminal Revision No.883/2015 submits that learned Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Wife is residing separately without any sufficient reason and is able to maintain herself. It is further submitted that learned Court below committed error in not considering the promissory note executed in favour of respondent wife who is a money lender. It is further submitted that learned Court below erred in taking into consideration the documents submitted before the Returning Officer, hence prayed that impugned order be set aside.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband. Further it is not disputed that wife is residing separately. According to husband, the wife is engaged in Sahukari. A promissory note has been filed. On perusal of the promissory note, I find that same is not signed by the wife.

No affidavit of Jagdish or any witness has been filed to demonstrate that he had taken loan of Rs.10,000/- from Smt. Jaya. Another promissory note has been filed to demonstrate that husband has taken loan of Rs.2 lacs from Vinod Kumar but no affidavit of Vinod Kumar or any witness has been filed to show that husband had taken loan, hence no reliance can be placed on the promissory note. It is submitted on behalf of the husband that wife is employed in Indore and earns Rs.20,000/- but no particulars of employment of Smt. Jaya Jain has been disclosed, hence it cannot be said that wife is able to maintain herself.

7. From perusal of the copy of the document of nomination submitted by the husband before the Returning Officer, it transpires that income of the husband has been shown as Rs.11,77,590/- in the year 2013 and the income of the wife Smt. Jaya Jain has also shown to be Rs.6,65,310/- in the year 2013 from the medical shop but