ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar wherein the learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the original respondent–husband, against whom respondent No.2–wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 151 of 2020 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 30,000/- per month, alleging that the petitioner was earning about Rs. 70,000/- to 75,000/- per month and had subjected her to mental and physical cruelty before driving her out of the matrimonial home on 06.04.2018. The petitioner filed his reply stating that his gross salary was Rs. 69,354/- and net take-home salary was Rs. 54,499/-, out of which he had financial obligations including maintenance to his parents, rent, and loan installments. Both parties led oral evidence, and upon appreciation of the same, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 as maintenance from the date of application. It is further relevant that earlier, the respondent No.2 had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 313 of 2018, which came to be decided on 20.09.2019, awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing..

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant herein has submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court are improper, unjust and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. That the impugned judgment and order of interim maintenance is also against from the established principle of law in as much as earning capacity of wife if concerned. That, learned Family Court has committed a serious error by not considering the evidence produced on record in its true spirit and impugned order is passed without assigning cognate and proper reasons. Even otherwise from the documentary evidence and oral evidence it is clearly come out that wife has made false and exaggerated allegation against the applicant just a view to get the handsome amount from the applicant and living her luxury life. It is further submitted that the respondent–wife is doing tailoring work and earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the said fact has been deliberately suppressed in the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite this, the learned Court has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- without proper justification. It is submitted that original order was passed in the year 2018 after considering the circumstances and the prevailing dearness rates. As of today, the husband is earning a gross salary of Rs. 90,000/-, which has been candidly admitted by the learned advocate for the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant–husband has the responsibility to maintain his parents and is paying Rs.25,000/- per month towards their maintenance, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant herein to allow present revision application.

5. Mr. Rohan Raval, APP for the respondent-State and Mr. H.D. Barot have opposed the present revision application and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Family Court is just, proper and in consonance with the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has duly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has rightly considered the income and earning capacity of the applicant–husband while awarding maintenance. It is further submitted that the