The court upheld the trial court's maintenance award, emphasizing the need for maintenance to reflect the husband's financial capacity and the wife's inability to support herself.

ORDER :

This revision petition u/S 19(4) of the Family Courts Act r/w section 397 o f Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/wife being aggrieved by the order dated 15/10/2019 passed by Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Indore in MJC no.78/2015, whereby the learned trial court has partly allowed an application u/S 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/wife and awarded her Rs.5,000/- per month maintenance against the respondent/husband from the date of impugned order. Hence, the present petition lies before this court for enhancement of maintenance amount.

2. It was admitted fact before the trial court that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 24/12/1978. From the wedlock of the parties, three children named Prajakta Bhaate, Pallavi Bhaate and Vedanshu alias Sameer Bhaate were born on 03/11/1981, 24/01/1984 and 03/08/1994 respectively. It was also admitted fact that the respondent is a retired bank manager and he gets pension of a sum of Rs.25,321/- per month and the petitioner is living separately from the respondent since year 1999. It was also undisputed fact that Prajakta Bhaate and Pallavi Bhaate are married and Vendanshu is a major.

3. Facts giving rise to this case are that after birth of Pallavi, disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent thereafter, the respondent deserted the petitioner and his children and started living apart somewhere else. Thereafter, in year 2000 the respondent got custody of his daughter Pallavi and son Vedanshu by competent court. On 30/01/2015, the petitioner filed maintenance application u/S 125 of Cr.P.C. stating that the petitioner has no means to maintain herself while the respondent is retired bank manager and gets pension of Rs.25,000/- per month. After desertion of the petitioner, the respondent had not made any arrangement for her maintenance. She is a helpless woman. She has no source of income. The respondent is a person with sufficient means of resources and he is capable to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner has sufficient reason to live separate from her husband. She never deserted her husband/respondent, therefore, she claimed Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from her husband/respondent.

4. The respondent denied all averments made by the petitioner/wife in application, in his reply except admitted facts and pleaded that since 30/06/1999 the petitioner has deserted the respondent. She has no sufficient reason to live separately. She has been living separately since 1999 and no maintenance application was filed till year 2014. In year 2014 the respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Thereafter she filed maintenance application in year 2015 on false grounds. It has also been pleaded that the respondent is an old man aged around 63 years. The respondent and his daughter Pallavi have taken house loan jointly for EMI of Rs.10,000/-each, Vedanshu is pursuing PGDCA and is taking coaching for GRE exam. The respondent bears all the expenditures mentioned above. The amount of pension is not sufficient to meet all the expenses. The respondent has to pay Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance in the case of HMA No.1327/2014 as per order dated 30/03/2016. It is also pleaded that the petitioner herself runs a crusher business and earns Rs.50,000/- – Rs.80,000/- per month. Thus, she is herself capable to maintain herself. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance.

5. Learned trial court appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and found that the petitioner has sufficient reason to live separate from the respondent, the petitioner is not able to maintain herself and the respondent has all sufficient means, hence, he is capable to maintain the petitioner. The learned trial court relying upon the judgment passed in case of Shanti Devi Vs. Uttam Prakash [1981 DMC 22; equivalent citation- (1980) 17 DLT 63 (1)] and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari And Ors. [(1970) 3 SCC 129] observed that the