1. Heard M/s. Giruka Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anupriya Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire record.

2. This Criminal Case is filed by petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge- cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, (‘trial Court’), in M.C.No.192 of 2022, wherein a petition filed by respondent No.2 herein-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- per month was partly allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month along with legal expenses of Rs.20,000/- and also to pay arrears from the date of petition within three months in three installments from the date of order.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein are husband and wife respectively. According to respondent No.2, their marriage (registered marriage) took place on 19.01.1998 and her family members gave dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and two tulas of gold to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a private employee with monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner went to United States of America (USA) on 24.01.1998 and started earning 60,000 dollars per annum. On 07.05.1998, their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs by incurring expenses of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined the conjugal society of the petitioner and gave birth to two children out of the wedlock. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner had suspicious nature and therefore, did not allow her to have any communication and did not allow her to do any work. Further, the petitioner did not provide any financial assistance to respondent No.2, whereas, he was spending his earnings for welfare of his siblings and their children. Whenever, respondent No.2 made attempts to ask about the income and savings of the petitioner, he reacted rudely and also physically attacked respondent No.2 on some occasions and advised her not to interfere in his affairs. Further, the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner also encouraged him to treat respondent No.2 like a slave.

4. Further, in the year 2007 respondent No.2 moved to Banglore along with their children. When respondent No.2 asked the petitioner for money to meet the expenses, he would give half of the requirement. In the year 2017, the petitioner moved permanently to India after many altercations between the couple. In year the year 2016, respondent No.2 opened a salon to meet her daily needs as the petitioner did not give her any money. The said salon went into losses because of Covid-19 and it was closed. The petitioner pushed respondent No.2 from first floor due to which she fell down and sustained fracture to the leg. Respondent No.2 always made efforts to adjust and cooperate with the petitioner, but the petitioner did not change his adamant attitude. Respondent No.2 has spent nearly 24 years of marital life where she was not allowed to work and spent her life maintaining household and upbringing of the children. The petitioner neglected respondent No.2 without providing sufficient money while he was having income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Respondent No.2 suffered mental trauma, maltreatment, cruelty and cheating by the petitioner. The petitioner is having movable and immovable properties whereas respondent No.2 does not have any property and she is dependant on her parents and brother for livelihood. After separation from the petitioner, respondent No.2 is living with her parents on their mercy. Hence, filed maintenance case.

5. The petitioner opposed the maintenance case before the trial Court by filing his detailed counter claiming that the marriage was solemnized on 19.01.1998 and actual wedding was performed as per Scheduled Tribe customs on 07.05.1998 at Gudur. The birth of two children out of wedlock is admitted, whereas all other allegations about treating respondent No.2 with cruelty, not providing with money and not allowing her to work are denied. The petitioner claims that he supported respondent No.2 and her family by transferring money while they were living in USA. The petitioner has put his property worth 1.59 crores in the name of respondent No.2, gave Rs.43,02,800/- in cash and also enabled her to start a salon by spending amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. Besides that the petitioner purchased gold, sarees, handbags and shoes for her. The petitioner denied checking phone records or not allowing respondent No.2 to go out of house. Further, petitioner denied treating respondent No.2 like slave for cooking, cleaning and other needs. Respondent No.2 was repaying loans taken by her father with the money taken from the petitioner for maintenance of both the children as well as respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 opened salon in the year 2017 and it was closed in the year 2019.

6. The petitioner denied pushing respondent No.2 from first floor and causing injuries to her. It is the petitioner, who gave money and supported the business of respondent No.2 and the petitioner relied upon the rental agreement dated 30.06.2017, which contains the name of the salon with advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which was given by the petitioner vide cheque dated 01.07.2017 drawn in favour of Apple City, through his bank account maintained in State Bank of India, Indira Nagar Branch. The petitioner further provided Rs.6,00,000/- including the cheque amount to support her wish to open salon. No complaint is given by respondent No.2 for being pushed by the petitioner from first floor in the month of November, 2017. The petitioner denied getting separated from respondent No.2 in the year 2017 instead they lived together with children till late 2021.

7. Further, the cause of action of the maintenance case is denied. The Petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 has filed the present maintenance case, another maintenance case under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in M.C.No.296 of 2022, a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in F.C.O.P.No.1154 of 2022 and DVC No.94 of 2024 before the Courts at Medchal-Malkajgiri District and a criminal case vide C.C.No.556 of 2022 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Thorrur. Respondent No.2 in order to gain unjust benefit of easy money filed the aforementioned cases. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 borrowed huge money from the relatives and banks and defaulted. In order to pay off debts is claiming huge money from him. During interregnum between 1999 to 2004, the petitioner gave Rs.11,40,000/- to his father-in-law for various reasons and also provided financial assistance for the purpose of study expenses of his brother-in-law (brother of respondent No.2) upto engineering to a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- for nine years and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for coaching for writing GRE, TOFEL, etc,. The brother-in-law of the petitioner failed to get proper score in GRE and therefore, could not pursue MS in USA. The petitioner was asked to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards study expenses of his brother-in-law for MS, but the petitioner denied. Therefore, respondent No.2 tortured him emotionally for a period of one year in the year 2008.

8. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 used to blackmail him and threaten to commit suicide by keeping him away and ignoring and rejecting his words. Respondent No.2 used to not talk to relatives of the petitioner, not support the kids, not taking care of the house, not cook food and used to regularly go to her hometown. The petitioner paid Rs.90,00,000/- from the year 2015-2017 through many ways and fixed deposits which were meant to their marriage expenses were also withdrawn. Respondent No.2 sold gold jewellery worth 600 grams worth of Rs.30,00,000/- and five kgs silver worth Rs.3,00,000/- and spent Rs.6,00,000/- for opening the salon. Respondent No.2 also tried to murder the petitioner on three occasions and this was discovered by their daughter. In the month of July, 2013, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner her interest to work as LKG teacher and started working in Narayana E-Techno School in Marathahalli, Banglore. She also changed few other schools from 2013 to 2017. Thereafter, respondent No.2 borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner to invest in school KidZ Kadugodi and became partner in the said school. The petitioner asked respondent No.2 to show him the terms and conditions of partnership, but respondent No.2 refused to do so stating that he does not believe his wife and there is no point in living together. The petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- without questions and said school worked till 2017. Respondent No.2 lost three mangalsutras for three times in three years between 2014-2016 and Rs.1,00,000/- was spent each time to purchase new mangalsutra. Respondent No.2 has habit of locking herself and not having physical contact causing panic in family members. In November, 2017, when the petitioner left to India, respondent No.2 started blackmailing him for money and on 21.11.2017, when petitioner was in online meeting suddenly he heard a noise and found that respondent No.2 was laying on ground floor in the garden. He learnt that she fell down from first floor and accordingly shifted her to Narayana Hrudayalaya Multi Speciality Hospital. She sustained fracture injury and was discharged after three days. When her parents and her brother came to see her and stayed in Banglore for a month, they did not discuss anything about the incident. Respondent No.2 informed them that she slipped and fell down from first floor and sustained fracture injury. The petitioner himself paid all the hospital bills and further after two years i.e., on 01.07.2019 surgery was performed removing the implants. Respondent No.2 has committed many acts such as jumping from first floor by way of threatening to commit suicide and threatening to give divorce, sleeping in ashrams, not talking to petitioner for months etc. Further, respondent has borrowed money from various individuals as follows:

               1. Borrowed from several local people/relatives Rs.62,40,721/-.

               2. Pavani tortured/forced Harilal to extract money from him Rs.1,59,62,400/-, phone number 9740252642.

               3. Borrowed from Usha Rs. 20,00,000/-, phone number 8951134441.

               4. Borrowed from Janardhan, Rs.18,00,000/-, phone number 9591762333.

               5. Borrowed from Srinivas Koi during Hari’s attempt to murder in 2018 attached the promissory note signed by pavani (given postdated cheque as surety) Rs.15,00,000/, Phone number 8618603662.

               6. Borrowed from Surendra, Sonelhalli, Bangalore, Rs.10,00,000/, phone number 9916896566.

               7. Borrowed from Satish, Sonelhalli, Bangalore filed cheating case, attached the certified case copy from court (given post dated cheque as surety), Rs.6,50,000/-, phone number 9741541008.

               8. Borrowed from Antony Raj during Hari's murder attempt, money transferred from Antony account to driver Adarsh Mohan account who is primary accused in the case (cheating case has been filed against Pavani, attached the certified copy from the court) (given post dated cheque as surety), Rs.7,00,000/- phone number 9152999948.

               9. Borrowed from Bhargava Reddy, Rs. 8,50,000/-, phone number 9845454647.

               10. Borrowed from Suresh water boy, Rs. 6,00,000/- phone number 9916183588.

               11. Raja taxi driver (Maha Linga, Devendar, black magic etc) (filed case against Pavani), Rs. 5,00,000/-, phone number 8867344027.

               12. Borrowed from Kavitha, D/o. Bbau, maid, Rs. 4,50,000/, phone number 9886972755.

               13. Borrowed from Pavithra/Anayan maid, Rs. 4,50,000/-, phone number 7483547940

               14. Amrutha transgender, trust money borrowed from her, Chinnasandra, Rs.4,00,000/-, phone number 6360695805.

               15. Borrowed from Suma/Srinivas maid, Rs. 3,00,000/-, phone number 9945401668.

               16. Prakash gold merchant borrowed money against fake jewellery did not pay the borrowed money to him, Rs.1,85,000/-, phone number 9900727311.

               17. Borrowed from Keerthi Raj, Car wash, Kannamangala, Rs. 1,50,000/-, phone number 9845177058.

               18. Jayalakshmi, 2 chits money not paid, Rs. 60,000/-, phone number 8147927703.

               19. Kadugodi Finance/Auto Mohan, Rs.50,000/-, phone number 8073431072.

               20. Vasantha flower girl, borrowed money from her, Rs. 4,000/-, phone number 9916633384.

               21. 7 credit card loan (SBI, Tata Capital, RBL, IDFC, Indusind Bank, Tata credit card, SBI), Rs. 9,58,036/-.

               Total amount Rs.3,48,10,157/-

9. Respondent No.2 by various means took an amount of Rs.1,59,62,400/- from the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is facing various cases before Courts of law as follows:

               1. Harilal murder attempt by Adarsh Mohan, CC NO. 4432/2018, Devanahalli, Karnataka, however the petitioner is the main accused, her name is skipped due to lack of investigation.

               2. Pavani money recovery case, borrowed money of Rs.10 Lakhs, Antony Raj Vs. Pavani, I ACJM, CC No. 20261/2022, Bangalore, Karnataka.

               3. Pavani money recovery case, borrowed money of Rs. 10 Lakhs, Satish Vs.Pavani, CC No. 15550/2022, Bangalore, Karnataka,

               4. Pavani money recovery case, RBL Bank Vs. Pavani, PCR No. 1057/2023.

               5. Pavani, her brother Praveen and 6 others tried to kill Harilal, NCR Filed by A.Raja in Kadugodi PS, Bangalore, Karnataka on 03.03.2022, No.KGPS/GNL/PETS/2022.

               6. Loan promissory note between Srinivas Koi and Pavani Dharmasoth for Rs.4,00,000/-.

               7. Pavani vs. Tata Capital, arbitration case CDN/TCFS/353/2021 for loan of Rs.3,51,512/-.

               8. SBI Bank legal notice for non-payment of borrowed money of Rs.1,41,222/-, Ref.No. EDN/0601/SOUTH/CHFF/44760/34432.

               9. Tata Credit Card legal notice for non-payment of borrowed money of Rs.1,46,223/-

               10. IDFC First Bank Limited for Rs. 2,46,086/-, legal notice.

               11. SBI Credit card (card number 0004726429057280105) For Rs.1,50,234/- legal notice.

               12. Indusind Bank For Rs.85,000/-, legal notice.

               13. Filed protest petition 190 Cr.P.C. at Devanahalli, Karnataka to add Pavani Dharmasot as main suspect to the Harilal attempt to murder case No.4432/2018, Devanahalli, Karnataka.

10. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned entire information was suppressed by respondent No.2. The children are living with the petitioner at Banglore. Though, the petitioner made attempts to bring respondent No.2 back to live with him the said attempts failed. It is the petitioner who suffered more physical abuse due to the acts of respondent No.2. The other family members of the petitioner also suffered along with him. Therefore, the petitioner denied the cause of action for filing of the maintenance case and sought for its dismissal.

11. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the maintenance case by granting Rs.90,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of petition along with Rs.20,000/- legal expenses. Aggrieved by same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

12. In the grounds of the revision, the petitioner pleaded that the Trial Court failed to consider that his son and daughter are aged about 25 and 23 years and they are in his care and that he has to pay monthly EMIs of Rs.2,52,681/- towards home loan, Rs.3,792/- towards gold loan, Rs.2530/- towards son’s educational expenses and Rs.32,000/- towards educational loan of his children. Therefore, in spite of having salary of Rs.2,62,117/- and Rs.40,000/- towards rental income, he is left with amount of Rs.11,114/- only. Respondent No.2 worked as teacher for about four years and has drawn salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The said bank statement has been marked and the same is admitted by her in the cross-examination. Further, respondent No.2 was running a beauty parlour during the year 2017 and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that there is admission by respondent No.2 that during marital life of 25 years, the petitioner has borne all the expenses. However, she voluntarily separated from him without any reason. There is admission by respondent No.2 about the children being in the care and custody of the petitioner and that their expenses are part of the petitioner’s household expenses. Therefore, it would impact the decision of granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month. The statement of assets and liabilities of the petitioner shows that he has Rs.2,53,21,927/- Axis Bank loan for 17 years with monthly EMI of Rs.2,52,681/- and other loans from other banks totaling to EMI of Rs.2,59,003/- per month and the said fact has not been considered by the Trial Court. The petitioner pleaded that they have lived happily for 23 years and multiple times offer was made to take care of loans of respondent No.2 and invited her to join the matrimonial society. Despite said fact, respondent No.2 made several murder attempts on the petitioner and the said act shows the nature and intent of respondent No.2. In the forgoing circumstances, awarding of Rs.90,000/- per month by the Trial Court towards maintenance, according to the petitioner, is erroneous and not in tune with the material on record as such prayed to set aside the same.

13. Respondent No.2 filed her counter pleading that the judgment of the Trial Court is in conformity with law, proper assessment of evidence and alignment with probabilities of the case. According to respondent No.2, their children are aged about 25 and 23 years and are adults and are financially independent and not dependant on the petitioner. The children are supporting the petitioner and have taken on the responsibility of his care. Moreover, the children have chosen to distance themselves from respondent No.2, which demonstrates their independence. With respect to income, it is pleaded that the actual income of the petitioner is Rs.9,00,000/- per month and not Rs.2,52,117/- as claimed by him. He has investments in mutual funds. Further, the income of Rs.40,000/- from rent is baseless and he receives more amount as rent from multiple properties. Respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner is paying EMI for house loan and besides that there is no evidence to support his claim of other EMIs. Further, respondent No.2 pleaded that she worked from 2014 to 2016 as teacher and had income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Currently, respondent No.2 is medically unfit and therefore, incapable of employment. Respondent No.2 has no qualification except 10th grade and no formal employment. The children have distanced themselves and have abandoned respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is living with her parents. It is pleaded that the Trial Court has rightly considered her 25 years of marriage where she was excessively frugal and also in the face of insults and humiliation subjected by the petitioner for minor financial discrepancies. Respondent No.2 further pleaded that she took care of the family being accountable for every smallest expense while the petitioner was residing in USA. In case there was adequate financial support she would not have to work hard for meagre salary. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner has taken all of her salary leaving her with nothing. The actual income of the petitioner is more than the evidence submitted before the Trial Court. Respondent No.2 pleaded that the Trial Court decision to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.90,000/- is justified, more-so, when the children are independent. Respondent No.2 also pleaded that the petitioner refused to support her when she is only educated upto 10th grade and he also withheld Rs.8,000/- earned by her. Respondent No.2 also pleaded that the petitioner is in a position to pay maintenance and therefore, the Trial Court has granted maintenance and that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands, as such prayed to dismiss the present revision.

14. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the loans taken by respondent No.2 and also the civil and criminal cases pending against her. It is argued that respondent No.2 is a person who spends beyond her means and in the process has caused untold hardship to the petitioner and his children. The children are in the care and custody of the petitioner and do not have anything to do with their mother on account of the troubles caused by her. It is further argued that the petitioner has taken care of respondent No.2 and her needs all through their marital life, but on her own respondent No.2 had left the matrimonial house leaving the children and therefore, she is not entitled to be granted with maintenance. Further, it is argued that while granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/-, the Trial Court failed to consider the expenses to be borne by the petitioner for the maintenance of his house and the maintenance of the children. The assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner clearly show that he has to approximately pay Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards EMIs. Therefore, in spite of having salary of Rs.2,50,000/- per month and rental income of Rs.40,000/-, the petitioner is hardly left with any amount and therefore grant of Rs.90,000/- per month towards maintenance of single lady is unwarranted. Lastly, it is argued that respondent No.2 is capable of earning as she already has experience in teaching and has also run a beauty parlour and therefore, it is not a fit case to deem her as a person, who is not capable of maintaining herself and therefore, cannot be granted with maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month. Alternatively, it is argued that even in case this Court intends to grant monthly maintenance, the same may be reduced to suit the expenses of a single person.

15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that there was mental and physical torture by the petitioner and therefore, respondent No.2 was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. It is argued that respondent No.2 has spent 25 years of marital life and is currently living with no support and is dependent on her parents for maintenance. It is also emphasized that currently respondent No.2 has no employment and income and therefore, she is a person/wife, who is unable to maintain herself and therefore, is entitled to grant of maintenance. The said maintenance has to be on par with the life style she got accustomed to during 25 years of marital life. It is argued that any able bodied husband has an obligation to maintain his wife and therefore, the petitioner is under an obligation to maintain his wife. Further, grant of maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month is appropriate as the same is required by respondent No.2 to maintain her life style on par with that of her life while she was with the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the present revision.

16. The facts borne out by the record are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married for about 25 years. They lived in USA for about 10 years and then they returned back to India. The petitioner, respondent No.2 and their children are citizens of USA. Respondent No.2 claims that petitioner caused physical and mental torture and also financially deprived her and further, the petitioner used to lock her whenever he went outside. According to respondent No.2, petitioner did not show any respect towards her as wife, never gave any money and never let her have freedom. At one instance, he pushed her down from first floor and the same resulted in fracture of leg. She is a wife, who is not capable of maintaining herself and therefore, is entitled to payment of maintenance.

17. The contra stand of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 was respected and maintained by taking care of her needs in every respect. However, she has habit of living beyond her means and ended up taking loans of nearly Rs.3,50,00,000/- from various individuals and banks. In that context, there are several civil and criminal cases filed against her. She has voluntarily left the house and therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance. The petitioner claims that respondent No.2 threatened him to jump from first floor and made false allegations against him. She has left the children leaving them in his care and custody. The petitioner was willing to deal with the debts taken by respondent No.2 and requested her to join his company, but she not only refused to join him, but also made attempts to murder him. Further, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 worked as school teacher earning Rs.10,000/- per month and also used to run a beauty salon from the year 2017 to 2019 and therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself.

18. In the backdrop of rival contentions, it is seen that during cross- examination respondent No.2 has admitted that she visited India eight times during her 11 years stay in USA with the petitioner and for every visit the travelling expenses were borne by the petitioner. Further, during 25 years of marital life, the petitioner has borne all expenses of respondent No.2. There is admission to the effect that while she was pregnant for the second time, the petitioner has sent her to the in-laws house for a period of four months and he had sent money for expenses of his son and thereafter, she returned to USA after the birth of female child. Respondent No.2 clearly admitted that she is capable of running salon. Further, while respondent No.2 claimed petitioner had Ac.30-00 of land in his native village, in cross- examination she conceded that he may have only Ac.9-00 of land, but not Ac.30-00 of land as claimed by her. Respondent No.2 admitted that photographs under Ex.R-6 show that she was working as a teacher in a school. Ex.R-7 is appreciation certificate issued by said school authorities. Respondent No.2 denied all the allegations with respect to pendency of criminal cases against her.

19. The aforementioned contents of the cross-examination show that respondent No.2 made an attempt to show the petitioner in extreme bad light about his attitude towards her as a wife and maintaining her dignity. Respondent No.2 portrayed petitioner as person, who controlled her freedom and financial status by not allowing her to do anything independently, as per the pleadings of the maintenance case and her chief affidavit. However, in cross-examination it is elicited that while they lived in USA as well as Banglore during the time of their marriage in the year 1998 till the year 2017, respondent No.2 did not give any complaint against the petitioner. In the year 2017, it appears that marital disputes have cropped up culminating in separation of the couple. It appears that after respondent No.2 started business of beauty salon along with another person there was borrowing of huge amounts of money from individuals and institutions. Respondent No.2 claims that she never borrowed said amounts as the entire financial dealings are done by her husband. She claims involvement of the petitioner in borrowing money from various avenues. The claim of respondent No.2 on one hand may seem probable as she is a lady, who has studied only upto 10th standard and there was chance to manipulate. Whereas, on the other hand it is seen that until beauty salon business was started by respondent No.2 in the year 2017, there were no major disputes or fallout between the couple such that they had to approach police. As long as respondent No.2 did not venture to borrow loans that too to an extent of Rs.3,50,00,000/-, there was no fallout between the parties.

20. Coming to the claim of respondent No.2 that she was only a mascot while the entire financial transactions were conducted by the petitioner is a point to be considered. There is a need to pose a question as to why the petitioner, who is successful in his career and has acquired sizeable amount of property would use respondent No.2 as a mascot to borrow money from various individuals and institutions. If such modus oprendi was to be employed by the petitioner to borrow money for illegal gain using respondent No.2 as medium, he could have done so ever since his marriage in 1998 to the year 2017. However, such is not the case. Having lived marital life of 20 years, without relying upon his wife’s earning, it does not stand to reason that suddenly the petitioner intended to earn money by borrowing money through his wife. The petitioner, who is Software Engineer, who has considerable amount of immovable property need not encourage respondent No.2 to enter into beauty salon business along with another person. It is point to be noted that respondent No.2 worked as school teacher from 2011 to 2016 for modest income of Rs.10,000/- per month. During the said time period, there were no complaints and disputes between the parties. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the picture presented by respondent No.2 about the petitioner running her financial transactions from behind scene is not entirely true.

21. In normal course as per the judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569) of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, both husband and wife are expected to file affidavit of their respective assets and liabilities in a maintenance case and substantiate the same with supporting documentary evidence. In the present case, respondent No.2 for her part has given a list of movable and immovable assets of the petitioner, in support thereof, relied upon Exs.P-6 to P-11. These aforementioned documents do prove that respondent No.2 owns immovable property. In response, the petitioner herein produced extensive documentary evidence ranging from Ex.R-1 which shows establishment of beauty salon in the name of respondent No.2, Ex.R-2 summary of bank account, Ex.R-3 rental agreement and Exs.R-4, 5, 19, 20, 21 and 22 showing various civil and criminal cases being registered against respondent No.2 and other documentary evidence showing amount of money that was spent by the petitioner towards expenses of respondent No.2. Further, evidence is produced to show the loans taken by respondent No.2.

22. In a normal maintenance case, where a wife is unable to support herself, the husband is put under an obligation to maintain her. This obligation of the husband to maintain his wife under no circumstances can be translated or twisted to mean that the husband has to bear the consequences of either thoughtless or deliberate spending of money by wife for purposes which may or may not be meant for meeting the financial needs of the family.

23. In the instant case, firstly there is failure on the part of respondent No.2 in coming out clean with respect to loans borrowed by her and the civil and criminal cases pending against her. The said facts were brought to fore only by the petitioner. Even after said facts were brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner, there is a blanket denial on the part of respondent No.2 for any mismanagement of finances. To the contrary, respondent No.2 is trying to shift the blame for financial mismanagement on to her husband i.e., the petitioner, claiming that though transactions were done in her name, the actual person conducting such transactions is her husband. Having made such claim to disown the difficult situation created on account of multiple loans taken from individuals and institutions and the resultant civil and criminal cases, respondent No.2 failed to put forth convincing evidence before the trial Court to demonstrate that the petitioner is the real person behind the loan transactions involving her. The black and white evidence on paper and complaints given by various individuals and institutions goes to show that it is respondent No.2 is instrumental in taking loans. Per contra, the evidence on record shows that the petitioner herein has sufficient source of income and through his prudence he has acquired considerable immovable property with EMIs which are payable within control. There are no transactions demonstrated either by respondent No.2 or the petitioner to show that the petitioner at any point of time went out of control with respect to his finances. There is no evidence on record to believe that the petitioner at any point of time had any intention to depend on income of respondent No.2 either for his survival or for running expenses of his family.

24. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has passed the impugned order without referring to any of the evidence adduced on record except for considering the income of the respective parties. While there is no dispute about legal ratio laid down in the judgment of Rajnesh (cited supra), the said legal ratio needs to be applied for considering amount of maintenance to be granted to the wife for her survival with dignity, but not for the purposes of repayment of loans taken by the wife for doing business or other financial activities which have nothing to do with maintenance of the family.

25. The impugned order shows that much time has been spent on pleadings and arguments, but no reference is made to the admissions made by respondent No.2 as P.W.2 and the evidence which shows habit of respondent No.2 of borrowing loans from individuals and institutions reflected in the documents exhibited in R series.

26. Respondent No.2 only focused on demonstrating her marital status as wife of the petitioner, property owned by the petitioner and to show that petitioner did not respect her and she is entitled to maintenance as a wife. While so, the petitioner concentrated on disproving adverse allegations made against him by respondent No.2 to demonstrate her conduct of borrowing of loans from individuals and institutions and amount spent by her during marital life over number of years. There is no rebuttal on the part of the petitioner on the evidence adduced by respondent No.2 with respect to expenses incurred by her and the various civil and criminal cases pending against her. On account of failure to assess the factual situation of the present case, the trial Court has granted Rs.90,000/- towards maintenance on the premise that petitioner is working as Engineering Manager at Intel Technologies Limited with salary of Rs.2,62,117/- and Rs.40,000/- towards rental income while maintenance needs to be granted to respondent No.2 that too in accordance with lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial house. By any stretch of imagination one person’s expenses cannot be Rs.90,000/- per month. No matter what kind of expenses are incurred towards food and travel, one individual can be maintained with expenses of Rs.25,000/- per month, which is income for low income families. Even in case said amount is doubled to meet other expenses such as medical and other unforeseen expenses, an individual cannot spend more than Rs.50,000/- per month.

27. Coming to the liabilities of respondent No.2 towards various individuals and institutions, respondent No.2 might have some inkling about the manner in which said liabilities are to be discharged. Further, respondent No.2 while receiving maintenance from her husband can always do some work in case she needs more money than the maintenance provided by her husband. Respondent No.2 claimed to be medically unfit, but failed to produce any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to believe that respondent No.2 is completely incapable of working.

28. In the circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the order passed by the trial Court by decreasing the amount of maintenance of Rs.90,000/- granted to Rs.50,000/- per month for respondent No.2 to lead a decent life on par with the petitioner.

29. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the trial Court in M.C.No.192 of 2022 to the extent of the maintenance amount of Rs.90,000/- per month reduced to Rs.50,000/- per month payable by the petitioner herein. The additional amount already deposited if any shall be adjusted. The arrears amount, if any, pending shall be paid within three months in three installments from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of the impugned order, stands affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.