Maintenance amounts must reflect realistic financial capacities of both parties involved.

ORDER

Heard Sri. Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. T.Ravinder Babu, learned counsel on behalf of Ms. C.Suneethamma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed in M.C. No. 182 of 2020 by the learned I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the trial Court partly allowed the M.C. by granting monthly maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- to respondent No. 2 herein and Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.3 herein, who are children of revision petitioner (husband) and respondent No.1 (wife).

3. Respondent No.1 is the wife of the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the revision petitioner and respondent No.1. The revision petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married on 29.12.2002 at Yadagirigutta temple as per Hindu rites and customs and also registered their marriage before the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, Safilguda, Secunderabad. There were matrimonial disputes between the couple leading to filing of M.C. No. 182 of 2020 seeking maintenance. The said M.C. was partly allowed by the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.50,000/- per month to respondent No.3 and no maintenance was granted to respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the revision petitioner.

4. In the grounds of the revision case, the revision petitioner pleaded that the trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to respondent No.2 until her marriage and Rs.50,000/- per month to respondent No.3 without taking financial capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration. No reasoning is given for arriving at the quantum of maintenance granted. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had sought monthly maintenance of Rs.45,000/- each, whereas, monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/-was granted to respondent No.3 which is more than the maintenance prayed for. As per the guidelines of Rajnesh v. Neha and another1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 the revision petitioner has furnished information to show that he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month, whereas, respondent No.1 did not file any proof to show that the petitioner is working with Dell software company and has income of Rs.1,75,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that the maintenance granted is four times higher than the income of the petitioner. There is no consideration of the fact that the petitioner worked till 2015 and respondent No.1 does not know whether he is doing any job and she is admitting that the petitioner is doing business. Further, it is pleaded that the capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance is not taken into consideration as per his living standards. The petitioner has an elderly mother and widowed sister living with him and he has responsibility to maintain both of them. It is also pleaded that the payment of maintenance to respondent No.2 is without consideration of the fact that under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., only minor daughter is entitled for payment of maintenance by the father. As per the legal ratio in Abhilasha v. Parkash and others2, (2020) AIR SC 4355) there is liberty to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to approach under various provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act , 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereas, Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., does not contemplate granting of maintenance to unmarried maj