ORDER

1. This criminal revision under section 19(4) of Family Courts Act has been filed against the order dated 16.9.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind by which the the Court below has awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3000/- each to applicants No.2 and 3.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicants filed an application under section 125 of CrPC against the respondent before the Court below, which was allowed by order dated 16.9.2019 and it was directed that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.4000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3000/- each to applicants No.2 and 3, by way of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicants have filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant No.1 is suffering from stone in gallbladder. The behaviour of the respondent towards the applicants is very cruel, due to which the applicant No.1 is compelled to reside in her parental house along with applicants No.2 and 3. The applicants prayed before the Court below for grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.30000/- per month as interim maintenance as the respondent is in the business of motor transport and earning Rs.1.00 lac per month. The applicant is immediately required for undergoing operation of gallbladder which would be costing around Rs.50000/-. Hence, prays for enhancement of amount of interim maintenance.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions and has submitted that the facts mentioned in the revision petition have no basis. The applicant No.1 along with her daughters are intentionally avoiding to reside with the present respondent and residing separately. It is further submitted that the respondent is not the owner of bus company rather his job is to call the passengers to travel through buses and the respondent is under huge debts on account of non-payment of vehicles' loan. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that under Right to Information Act various documents have been filed which are annexed with the petition which shows that the respondent is owner of various buses. The statements of the respondent itself shows that he is having capacity to make payment of interim maintenance as claimed by the applicants.

6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

7. On perusal of available record, it is apparent that the respondent is bus owner and is running bus company. The copies of the documents submitted by the applicant prima facie shows that the respondent is having much capacity to pay the interim maintenance.

8. When the wife has been turned out of her matrimonial house and she is compelled to stay in her parents house, then it cannot be said that the husband is not liable to maintain his wife. When the wife is ousted from her matrimonial house, she may not only suffer physical hardships but she may also suffer mental hardships. She also loses the company of a person on whom she had deposed faith and had decided to live with him as his wife. Marriage is not a mere formality or a ritual. Marriage is a ceremony where two souls get united and the wife, in the company of her husband, feels protected from all odds and when she is deprived of the company of her husband, then she may suffer mental harassment/depression. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife does not come to an end even after the separation because of disputes between him and his wife. The husband is under obligation to provide the maintenance so that his wife may enjoy the same comfort which she would have otherwise got in her matrimonial house. Thus, the social status of the parties, specifically of the husband, comes into play and that is one of the guiding factor for the determination of the maintenance amount. So long as wife