The main legal point established is that maintenance should be granted for the amelioration of the financial state of the woman, and the court may consider the separate income and means of the wife in determining the maintenance amount.

1. This revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-wife for enhancing the maintenance granted per month, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni, in M.J.C. No.2200051/2015, from Rs.7,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month.

2. It is not disputed that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent is serving as Assistant Grade-III in the Municipality Office, Jagdalpur and is earning Rs.21,160/- per month as salary and after deduction his take home salary is Rs.16,500/- per month.

3. Learned Family Court after evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.7000/- per month to the applicant-wife. The contention of the applicant-wife before this Court is that learned trial Court has not considered the claim of income @ Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance claimed by the applicant-wife and learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and assessing the dependency of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance not awarded sufficiently. If the amount of maintenance is not enhanced, then the applicant would further litigate under the 'PWDV Act' against the respondent-husband.

4. On behalf of the respondent, the contentions are vehemently opposed and submitted that the applicant-wife is a law graduate and a practicing lawyer. Therefore, she is earning herself and the total take home salary of the respondent is only Rs.16,500/-, which is meager amount. Therefore, the award of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance is already in the higher side. The applicant has no reason to file this revision. The respondent further contended that in determining the amount of maintenance, the Magistrate is competent to take into consideration the separate income and means of wife as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 83.

5. Heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

6. On behalf of the applicant during the course of arguments, it is contended that learned trial Court has passed order of maintenance, but has not allowed the maintenance from the date of application. Rebutting this arguments, counsel for the respondent submits that learned trial Court has passed the order without assigning date of implementation, which clearly indicates that the maintenance is from the date of order. It is also contended that no such claim has been made in the petition for maintenance from the date of application. More so the applicant-wife was awarded interim maintenance for the period during the pendency of the case @ Rs.1000/- per month. Therefore, now she cannot claim maintenance from the date of application.

7. The applicant has placed reliance in the cases of Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak 2008 Cr.L.J. 3881, in the above context is not applicable in the present case.

8. The applicant has also placed reliance in the cases of Rishikesh Singh @ T.R. Singh vs. Krian Gautam decided by Chhattisgarh High Court on 05.09.2014 in Criminal Revision Nos.399 and 420 of 2018, wherein it is held that the maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month is enhanced to Rs.3000/- per month. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the non-applicant wife.

9. The applicant has also placed reliance in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others decided by the Apex Court on 15.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1331/2014, wherein the Apex Court has held that :-

"It was felt necessary for granting maintenance from the date of application as the wife sustained herself for a period of nine years without maintenance."

10. This case law is of no avail to the applicant because the applicant was getting interim maintenance during the pendency of the case and the applicant herself is a practicing advocate.

11. The applicant has also placed reliance in the case of Aneeta Joshi vs. Subhash Joshi reported in 2006 (5) MPHT 517, where