The financial capacity of the husband and the standard of living of the parties are crucial factors in determining maintenance, and the wife is entitled to know the husband's salary.

JUDGMENT

Shri Rohit Bansal, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri S.S.Kushwah, learned counsel for the respondent.

1. On 22/07/2019, the following order has been passed:-

'Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri M.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

Counsel for the respondent sought time to file reply.

Same is opposed by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that as a dilatory tactic, respondent is making attempts to delay the matter. As per the order of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, Rs. 18,000/- in total per month is to be given to petitioners as maintenance.

Counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply within two weeks positively, else matter should be heard without reply. It is further expected that respondent shall submit the appropriate documents in support of his submission regarding the salary structure of respondent. It is also expected that respondent shall pay regular maintenance amount to petitioner, who are his wife and children.

List the matter on 8/8/2019.'

2. In response to the aforesaid order, the respondent has filed his reply but has not filed the salary slip on the ground that compelling the husband to file the salary slip in the maintenance proceedings would be contrary to the protection given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

'21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.'

3. Giving an opportunity to the husband to file his salary slip for effective adjudication of the maintenance proceedings cannot be said to be depriving him from his life and personal liberty. Even otherwise, it is clear from the Article 21 of the Constitution of India that the life and liberty of a person can be deprived in accordance with procedure established by law.

4. The respondent has also taken the defence of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and submitted that no one can be compelled to give evidence against himself. Article 20 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

'20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.-

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.'

5. The present revision arises out of the proceedings registered under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. There is no question of conviction of the respondent. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides that no person/accused of any offence shall be compelled of the witness against him. Admittedly, the respondent is not an accused. The protection granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not apply to the respondent.

6. This Court by order dated 12/04/2022 also had granted time to the respondent to comply the order dated 22/07/2019, but it is submitted by Shri Kushwah that he cannot be compelled to file the salary slip of the respondent.

7. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that compelling the respondent to disclose his income is violative his right of privacy, which is also embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. The next question for consideration is as to whether the respondent can be compelled to file his salary slip in order to effectively adjudicate the dispute under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or arising out of any other maintenance proceedings or not.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has held that a wife is entitled for enjoying the same status, which she would have otherwise enjoyed in her m