1. Heard finally.

2. This order shall dispose of CRR No.829/2024 filed by husband- Manish Sharma and CRR No.97/2024 filed by wife-Mala Sharma.

3. Both the criminal revisions arise from an order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in MJCR No.20240/2018. By the said order, an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C filed by the wife was allowed, whereby maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month each to two minor children (total Rs.40,000/-) was granted.

4. Criminal Revision No.829/2024 has been filed by husband challenging the award of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to each minor children, whereas CRR No.97/2024 has been filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance amount.

5. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revisions in short are that the respondent/wife had filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C alleging that her marriage with petitioner/husband was solemnized on 24.06.2012 in Gwalior as per Hindu rights and custom. Out of said wedlock, respondent no.2 and 3 were born. After marriage, when she went to her matrimonial home, after sometime the husband- and his family members began demanding a car in dowry and started harassing her physically and mentally. In the year, 2014, when she was pregnant and the petitioner/husband was on duty, her father-in-law and both brothers-in-law physically assaulted her and drove her out of the house in the same cloths she was wearing. On 18.01.2015, she gave birth to a son at her parental home.

6. Thereafter, when her father tried to explain matters to petitioner and his family, the petitioner began living separately with respondent/wife in Dindayal Nagar, but even there he continued to harass her physically and mentally. It was further mentioned in the application that in May, 2016 she gave birth to a daughter and when the petitioner/husband came on leave, he took her to matrimonial home at Bhagat Singh Nagar. In matrimonial home again in-laws pushed and beat her and said that she would not be allowed to enter the house unless the dowry demand was fulfilled. They also obtained her signature on blank papers. She, thereafter, submitted a written complaint at P.S, Gola Ka Mandir on the basis of which a dowry case was registered against the petitioner and his family members.

7. It was further submitted that after a compromise, she went to live with her husband, but again her in-laws removed all her ornaments and harassed and assaulted her over dowry. In 2018 she was driven out of the house with both the children in the same cloths she was wearing. On the said premise she had filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C and further stated that she has no source of income. The petitioner is employed in Merchant Navy service and his monthly income is Rs.2 lakhs per month and, thus, prayed for Rs.1 lakh per month as maintenance for her and two children, from the petitioner/husband.

8. The petitioner filed reply and denied the allegations that he and his family members have never mentally and physically tortured the respondent. It was further contended that neither he nor his family members ever demanded dowry from the respondent. It was further stated that after the marriage, the respondent used to frequently visit her parental home and return in the evening. It was alleged that she used to demand Rs.5000-7000/- every one or two days and upon refusal would threaten to commit self-harm by cutting the veins of her hand. It was further alleged that she forcibly obtained money from his father and used abusive language against him and his family members. It was further pleaded that due to her conduct, he rented accommodation at DD Nagar, Gwalior and, thereafter, at Bhagat Singh Nagar. Since he remained out of station for approximately six months on account of his employment, it was alleged that whenever, he returned, respondent would reside with him for two or three days and thereafter, leave for her parental home and would not return despite request.

9. It was further contended that the respondent's family members demanded money on the pretext of purchasing a house and that the respondent's parental family subsequently purchased a house at DD Nagar, Gwalior. He opened a post office R.D account in the name of wife and deposited Rs.1000/- per month. He also made FD of Rs.2,00,000/- took an insurance policy of Rs.20,00,000/- and a policy in the name of child, in which he deposited Rs.15,000/- every year. The petitioner filed a case u/s 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before Principle Judge, Family Court, Gwalior (Case No.154/2016). During mediation, a compromise was prepared. The respondent did not comply with the compromise arrived at during mediation proceedings. The respondent and her family members allegedly demanded Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month and threatened him. He made a written complaint to the police regarding these threats. It was also stated that he worked in the Merchant Navy on a contract basis and on account of complaint made by respondent, he has been removed from service. The respondent/wife earns Rs.4000-5000/- per month from tuition. She is living separately on her own volition, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.

10. Learned Family Court after recording evidence of parties and hearing both the parties, allowed the application filed u/s 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the husband/petitioner to pay the maintenance amount @ of Rs.20,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to each minor children.

11. Learned counsel for the husband/petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance ignoring the fact that the respondent/wife is well qualified woman and she can maintain herself by running tuition classes. She is living separately without any sufficient cause. She did not comply the compromise entered into between the parties in mediation proceedings. Mere pendency of criminal cases u/s 498-A of IPC and related provision cannot by itself show sufficient cause for separate living. He also argued that he had already paid substantial sum exceeding Rs.11 lakhs to brother of respondent to purchase house. The said house was sold by brother of respondent/wife under compromise, but did not return the said amount. The respondent/wife has failed to prove that the petitioner has ever denied to maintain her or neglect the same.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the case u/s 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act he has already been acquitted vide order dated 15.07.2024 and the said order has also been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 by dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent. In such condition, respondent now has no sufficient cause to live separately. It is also argued that the petitioner is out of job since 28.08.2023, hence he is not capable to maintain respondent and on said premise prayed for quashing the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Family Court.

13. In support of his submissions, he relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur in CRA No.879/2009 dated 28.04.2009 and the orders passed by this Court in the case of Savita Bai vs. Prahalad in MCRC No.7660/2005 dated 01.10.2013 and Anil vs. Smt. Sunita passed in CRR No.829/2014 dated 29.11.2016.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/wife - (petitioner in CRR No.97/2024) submits that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand have been consistently pleaded and proved. The plea of the petitioner that she is earning Rs.4000-5000/- per month from tuition fees is bald and unsubstantiated. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife further submits that the learned Family Court had undervalued the income of the husband despite the clear proof of earning exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Considering the cost of living and the education of two school going children, it was argued that maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to wife and Rs.10,000/- each to two minor children is inadequate and should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- for wife and Rs.25,000/- each to two minor children. As per the submission of counsel for the respondent/wife maintenance must reflect the parties status and husband's capacity to pay.

15. Considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and perused the record.

16. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to deal with contention of the petitioner that the parties have entered into compromise in mediation proceedings and that the respondent/wife failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. The said contention of the petitioner has no force. Even though respondent/wife had signed the compromise, if the circumstances which compelled her to live separately continued even thereafter, the mere compromise entered into between the parties does not dis-entitle the wife from claiming maintenance. It has been specifically pleaded and stated in evidence that after the compromise, she went to reside with her husband, but again her in-laws took away her ornaments and assaulted her in connection with dowry demands.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment passed in the case of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato reported in 2025 INSC 55 has held that even the decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not dis- entitle the wife to claim maintenance.

18. From the pleading of the parties and evidence on record, it is reflected that both the parties have made several allegations on each other. It is settled in law that the proceedings u/s 125 of Cr.P.C is summary in nature. In a proceeding u/s 125 of Cr.P.C it is not necessary for a Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita Kachwaha and Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha reported in 2014(16) SCC 715 has held in para 6 as under:-

          "6. The proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. While so, the High Court was not right in going into the intricacies of dispute between the appellant-wife and the respondent and observing that the appellant-wife on her own left the matrimonial house and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. Such observation by the High Court overlooks the evidence of appellant-wife and the factual findings, as recorded by the Family Court. "

          Emphasis supplied

20. In view of the said settled legal position, this Court need not to go in minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent.

          -Now the questions for determination in the present case are:-

          (I)Whether respondent/wife was compelled to reside separately from the petitioner for sufficient and reasonable cause?

          (II)Whether respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and her minor children?

          (III)Whether the petitioner/husband has sufficient income and means to provide maintenance?

          (IV)Whether the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is on lower side?

          21.(I) Whether respondent/wife was compelled to reside separately from the petitioner for sufficient and reasonable cause?

          21.1. The contention of the petitioner/husband that the finding recorded by the learned Family Court that pendency of proceedings u/s 498-A of IPC and divorce petition gives sufficient cause to respondent/wife to live separately is not correct. Mere pendency of proceedings u/s 498-A of IPC and related provision cannot by itself show sufficient cause for living separately. Moreover, in the proceeding u/s 498-A of IPC the petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, now no sufficient cause is existed.

          21.2. The issue that mere pendency of proceedings u/s 498-A of IPC and related provision cannot by itself show sufficient cause for living separately is dealt with by this Court in the case of Prashant Shrivastava vs Smt. Sushma Shrivastava reported in ILR 2010 MP 1216. For reference para 11 is quoted herein below:-

          "11. This apart, it is well settled that the prosecution for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC affords a reasonable ground to the wife to live separately. Moreover, as explained in Dalibai v. Rajendra Singh (2006) 1 MPLJ 495, the acquittal in the criminal case relating to the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act would not be sufficient to wash out the statement of the respondent no.1 on oath that she had been treated with cruelty at her matrimonial home."

          Emphasis supplied.

          21.3. From the evidence of the parties in the present case, it is clear that wife had made complaint for offence u/s 498-A of IPC whereas petitioner/husband had also filed a petition for divorce against wife.

          Thus, from the allegations and counter allegations made by parties, learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the wife is residing separately because of reasonable cause. The finding recorded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be perverse in view of the allegations made by the parties against each other.

          22.(II) Whether respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and her minor children?

          22.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the respondent/wife is well qualified and she can maintain herself. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent/wife runs tuition classes by which she earns Rs.4000-5000/- per month. This issue is now no more res-integra.

          22.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 has dealt with the issue and held as under:-

          "90. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.

          90.1. In Shailja & Anr. vs. Khobbanna [ (2018) 12 SCC 199 ] this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.

          90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs Anil Kachwaha, (supra) the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

          90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale vs. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC Online Bom 694, while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

          90.4. ****

          90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife."

          Emphasis supplied.

          22.3. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the husband has failed to prove that the respondent/wife is sufficiently earning. Finding recorded by learned Family Court that respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and minor children is based on record and cannot be said as perverse.

          23.(III) Whether the petitioner/husband has sufficient income and means to provide maintenance?

          23.1. From the perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner/husband has not disclosed his income in the affidavit filed in pursuance to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra). From the record, it is also clear that up to the year, 2023 petitioner was earning handsomly. After 2023 he has not disclosed the exact amount of his income.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) has held as under:-

          "80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.

          90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, reported in AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court.

          90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife."

          Emphasis supplied.

25. In the light of the said judgment the learned Family Court has rightly drawn the adverse inference against the petitioner because he has not disclosed the exact amount of his income.

          26.(IV) Whether the maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is on lower side?

          26.1. The learned Family Court has awarded Rs.20,000/- as maintenance to wife and Rs.10,000/- each to two minor children (total Rs.40,000/-PM). The petitioner/husband is challenging the said maintenance and respondent/wife claiming enhancement.

          26.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) in para 81 has held as under:-

          "81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the petitioner was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.36 The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."

27. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the husband, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. If the validity of the order passed by the learned Family Court is tested on the anvil of aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the learned Family Court has awarded reasonable maintenance which cannot be said neither extravagant nor meagre. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for petitioner/husband are not of much assistance to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

28. Upon careful examination, this Court finds no perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional flaw in the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 to justify interference, whether for enhancement or reduction. The amount fixed strikes a fair balance between the needs of the wife and children and the husband's paying capacity.

29. Consequently, CRR No.829/2024 filed by husband and CRR No.97/2024 filed by wife are hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in MJCR No.20240/2018 is affirmed.

30. It is clarified that any amount already paid by the husband under interim or final orders in these or related proceedings shall be duly adjusted towards arrears. The Family Court/Executing Court may, on a proper application, fix a reasonable schedule for clearing arrears, having regard to the needs of the wife and children and the husband's proven financial capacity.

31. No order as to costs.