ORDER

1. With consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This order shall govern the disposal of these criminal revisions as they are arisen out of same order dated 22.8.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case (Criminal) No. 592/2019 by the learned IIIrd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court District Indore. Hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.8.2023, passed in MJC(Cri) No.592/2019, by learned IIIrd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Indore, the Criminal Revision No. 4570/2023 has been filed by Neelam W/o Radheshyam Patel/petitioner No. 1 and Namami D/o Radheshyam Patel for enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- & Rs.8000/- upto Rs.40,000/- (in total), while the Criminal Revision No. 4157/2023 has been filed by respondent/Radheshyam to set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of his wife and daughter. Further, the wifeNeelam and daughter-Nimami will be addressed as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 while husband-Radheshyam will be addressed as respondent.

4. Prosecution story in nutshell is that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 25.5.2015 as per hindu customs in Indore. In marriage, the family members of the petitioner gave household items, cash and jewellery as dowry. However, after sometime, the respondent and his family members started harassment and cruelty with petitioner No. 1 by demanding Rs.5 lakhs and a four wheeler. Due to not fulfilling the said demand, the behaviour of respondent was very rude to petitioner No. 1 and he used to beat her, also abuse her on a day to day. On 17.6.2016, their daughter Nimami was born out of this wedlock. Later on, petitioners were forced to go back to her maternal house and respondent filed petition for divorce under section 13A of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the petitioners moved an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded in his argument that the learned Family Court has passed the order only on the basis of respondent's avernments, the trial Court did not pay any heed on the evidence available on record. The respondent is a businessman and runs R.S. Institute as a Director through which he earns Rs.65000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month. The petitioners were compelled to live in her maternal house without any monetary relief. The petitioners are totally dependent on the respondent. Petitioner No. 1 is not an earning lady. She has not sources for her livelihood. Her father expired on 9.5.2022. Counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the maintenance awarded to the petitioners is very meagre and lower side, which can be extended upto Rs.40,000/- per month.

6. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have falsely shown the respondent to be Director of one R.S. Institute. The respondent has nothing to do with R.S. Institute and photographs (Ex.P/5) which were inadmissible in the evidence, were taken into consideration by the trial Court and came to hold that respondent is associated with R.S. Institute. The petitioners have not furnished any certificate in terms of section 65 of Evidence Act and have also not produced negatives of photographs. There is no documentary evidence to prove that the respondent is earning Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is an educated lady having M.Com. Degree and also gainfully employed by performing the profession of tailoring but the trial Court has erred in law in not holding that petitioner No. 1 is earning lady. Further, it is submitted that the trial Court has incorrectly considered the ITRs of respondent and wrongly presumed the income to be Rs.40,000/- per month. The maintenance Rs.20,000/- awarded to the petitioners is extremely higher side and respondent has no means