Point of Law: The word “maintenance " which should not be narrowly interpreted, means the most reasonable requirement for the existence of a person to live separate, and accordingly the expenditure, broadly speaking, not only includes on food, clothing and residence but also medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C”) by the revisionist seeking enhancement of quantum of maintenance awarded vide Judgment dated 27th November, 2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi (hereinafter “learned Principal Judge”) in MT No. 5861929/2016 claiming it to be on the lower side.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. The marriage between revisionist and respondent was solemnised on 11th July, 2008 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. No issue was born from the said wedlock.

It is alleged that revisionist was abused, insulted and ill-treated for bringing insufficient dowry by the respondent/husband and his family members. It is further alleged that Respondent is an alcoholic person having affairs with other women. It is also alleged that the respondent and his parents demanded cash amount of Rs. 10 Lacs for supporting the business of the husband/respondent. Since the revisionist failed to bring dowry of Rs. 10 Lacs, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 28th October 2008.

ii. The revisionist was totally neglected by the respondent and was unable to maintain herself. She is totally dependent upon her parents. She has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for her maintenance. Since the respondent started absenting from the proceedings, Court proceeded ex-parte on 11th December 2015.

iii. Vide Judgment dated 27th November 2017, the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C was allowed by the learned Principal Judge, by which the respondent was directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 11,000/- and maintenance, as follows:

a) Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e 26th May, 2010 to 25th May, 2015;

b) Rs. 2,500/- per month w.e.f 26th May, 2015 to 27th November, 2017;

c) Rs, 3,000/- per month w.e.f from 27th November 2017 till such time revisionist gets remarried.

3. Being aggrieved by the inadequate maintenance, awarded by the learned Family Court vide judgment dated 27th November 2017, revisionist has preferred the instant revision petition for the enhancement of the maintenance amount.

SUBMISSIONS

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on 28th October 2008. Since then she is living with her parents and is totally dependent upon them. The maintenance awarded to tune of Rs. 3,000/-, is very inadequate for her sustenance. Whereas, the respondent/husband is working as the Incharge in Guru Bhog Floor Mill, Lawrence Road, Delhi, and drawing salary of Rs.82,000/- per month. But the Court below has not considered the fact that the respondent is trying to hide his actual salary and has deliberately not furnished any income proof or salary slip to prove his case. It is submitted that revisionist has claimed maintenance @ Rs.35,000/- per month for her livelihood.

5. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that from day one of the marriage, the respondent and his family members were very cruel towards the revisionist. The respondent and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and started demanding cash of Rs. 10 Lakhs for starting their business.

6. It is submitted that since the revisionist was unable to maintain herself and the respondent/husband had totally neglected and failed to fulfill the basic financial needs, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for her maintenance on 26th May, 2010. It is submitted that the respondent, in sheer abuse of his rights, failed to appear before the learned Family Court and therefore, the learned Family Court finally proceeded ex-parte from 11th December, 2015.

7. It is submitted that the revisionist and respondent have entered into settlement wherein it was agreed that revisionist and respondent would be staying together and responde