1 2025:CGHC:19315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 480 of 2024 Purnima Guruwara W/o Sanjeev Guruwara Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 111, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - Sanjeev Guruwara S/o Shri Satyapal Guruwara R/o House No. 111, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanchi Guruwara D/o Sanjeev Guruwara Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 111, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh .. Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate CRR No. 741 of 2024 Sanjeev Guruwara S/o. Shri Satyapal Guruwara Aged About 54 Years R/o. House No. 111, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Poornima Guruwara W/o. Sanjeev Guruwara Aged About 49 Years R/o. House No. 111, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.17 18:27:23 +0530 2 2 - Sanchi Guruwara S/o. Sanjeev Guruwara Aged About 23 Years R/o. House No. 111, Indira Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) --- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. These two criminal revisions have been filed by the respective parties against a common order passed by learned Family Court, Bastar, place Jagdalpur arising out of the common proceedings, therefore both these criminal revisions are being heard and decided together. 2. The Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2024 is listed for admission, whereas the Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 is listed for hearing on the application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision (I.A. No. 1). After hearing the parties and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 is condoned. With the consent of the parties, both these criminal revisions are being heard finally. 3 3. The Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/wife against the impugned order dated 05.02.2024, passed by learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, in MJC No. 121 of 2021 challenging the quantum of maintenance amount, which has been awarded to her and claimed the higher amount towards maintenance. 4. The Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/ husband against the impugned order dated 05.02.2024, passed by learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, in MJC No. 121 of 2021 challenging the liability to pay and her entitlement to the maintenance amount to the wife. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between the parties have been solemnized on 07.07.1992 as per their rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, 03 children were born. On 22.10.2021, the petitioner/wife and her daughter have filed an application under Section 125 of CRPC for grant of monthly maintenance amount from the husband with the pleading that after their marriage, the husband and his family members started harassing her physically as well as mentally. Her husband used to drink liquor and started beating her, even in presence of his family members and guests, he scolded her brutally and has not taken any care of her. Even, he had not provided any basic need of her and her children and neglected them completely. Due to his aggravated conduct of harassment, the wife gave her consent for divorce and on 31.10.2017 a compromise was 4 taken place between the parties that the husband would pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife, but he had paid the said amount only for 03 months and therefore, the application for grant of divorce by mutual consent was withdrawn. It is also pleaded in the application that, the petitioner No.2/daughter is a student of Beauty Parlor and Cosmetics, but she is facing hardship an financial crisis. The wife is having no source of her income and completely dependent upon her in-laws. The husband is running a hotel in partnership and also having a franchise of Idea Cellular Phone. He is also earning from the rent of his properties and earning more than Rs. 10 lakhs per months from all his sources. It is legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children and looking to the income and living standard of the husband, they are entitled for Rs. 2 lakhs per month towards the maintenance amount. 6. Replying the application of the wife and daughter for maintenance, the husband denied the averment made in the application and have pleaded that he provided all the basic comforts to his wife after the marriage and taking every care of her. He fulfilled all her demands of her luxury as and when she wishes. She is a professional lady and engaged in event management of parties and various concerts and also running a music and dance class and earning sufficient amount. She is in habit to show of her luxury and spent huge amount in day- to-day life. As per the compromise taken place between the parties in the year 2017, he starting paying Rs. 20,000/- per month, but she 5 herself violated the conditions of the compromise and forcefully entered in his house and has withdrawn the divorce application. He or his family members have never harassed her for any reason. He is earning Rs. 41,000 – 43,000/- per month, out of which Rs. 18,000/- is deducting against the EMI of two loans. He is suffering from high BP, hernia, cervical pain and vertebral pain. He is taking care of his family property, out of which he was paying Rs. 41,000 - 43,000/- as his salary/incentive and he is unable to provide the luxury life of high society to his wife and her application is liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned Family Court has framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, on 05.02.2024 partly allowed the application filed by the wife and child and granted Rs. 10,500/- per month as maintenance amount to the petitioner/wife, which is payable from the date of application i.e. 22.10.2021. No maintenance has been awarded to the petitioner No.2/daughter on the ground that on the date of application, she already attains the age of her majority, and as per the provisions of Section 125(1)(b) she is not entitled for maintenance. 8. The impugned order dated 05.02.2024 is challenged by both the parties in the present two criminal revisions as per their respective claims. 9. Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the wife in Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2024 would submit that his husband is earning more than Rs. 10 lakhs per month and living in a luxurious life, 6 whereas the wife is having no source of her income and fully dependent upon her in-laws. The husband has completely neglected her and has not provided any basic need to her and her children. The amount awarded by the learned Family Court is on very lower side and the wife is also entitled for the same status as her husband is enjoying. He would also submit that from the evidence of the husband, it clearly reveals that he is having income of more than lakhs of rupees and able and capable to pay the maintenance amount higher than the amount awarded by the learned Family Court. From the income tax return of the husband, it reflects that he is having sufficient income. Even otherwise the income tax return is not the exact proof of his income and in the evidence available on record, it can be considered that he is having more income than the income shown in the income tax return. The husband is running a hotel. The husband in his evidence has admitted that he did not know as to whether the land of the hotel Poonam is in his name or not. He admitted that in the ground floor of the hotel, one ATM, Vodafone agency and office of Haribhoomi newspaper is running. He further stated that from the hotel Poonam, Rs. 3-4 lakhs per month is the income and he further admitted that in the partnership firm, his share is 25%, and therefore, the income of the husband is more than lakhs of rupees, which he himself has admitted in his evidence, yet a meager amount has been awarded to the wife, which needs to be enhanced and she is entitled for the higher amount towards her monthly maintenance. 7 10. Learned counsel appearing for the husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the wife and has submitted that the wife is still residing in the house of the husband. In para 18 of the impugned order, the learned Family Court has considered the admission made by the wife and her maintenance by her in-laws. He would further submit that he is only a partner in an undivided property and joint family business and he has filed his income tax return as the proof of his yearly income, which comes to about Rs. 41,000/- per month and considering his income and liability, the learned Family Court has granted 25% of his monthly income towards the maintenance to the wife. He would also submit that in the divorce proceeding, the wife was granted maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 20,000/- per month, but the same has not been adjusted in the maintenance amount granted in the present case. The maintenance amount is to be ordered from the date of order, but in the present case, the same is awarded from the date of application, therefore, a huge amount of arrears is accumulated, which caused financial burden upon the husband. He would also submit that the application for grant of divorce filed by the husband was dismissed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur on 08.12.2023 and the husband has challenged the same by filing his appeal [FA (MAT) No. 25 of 2024] before this Court, which is pending for its consideration. The husband has taken every care of his wife and children, but she herself is residing separately without any sufficient 8 cause, and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance, or even no ground for enhancement of the maintenance amount. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Family Court. 12. Section 125 of CRPC is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children with the object to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife and children, when they are unable to maintain themselves. The wife and children should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. With the above said view, this Court is examining the evidence available on record with respect to grant of maintenance to the wife. 13. The petitioner/wife has examined herself as AW-1 and proved the document (exhibit A-1 to A-10). The non-applicant has also examined himself as NAW-1 and has proved the documents (exhibit NA-1 to NA-78). 14. The petitioner/wife (AW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief as per her application and stated that she is dependent upon her husband. He is running a hotel in the name of Poonam Lodge and the ground floor of the lodge is a commercial place and given it on rent. He is also running franchise of Idea and Vodafone and thus, her husband is earning more than Rs. 5 lakhs per month from his business. Apart from this, much amount is earning from the other 9 properties of the family and she is entitled for the same status as her husband is enjoying and is a need of Rs. 40,000/- towards her maintenance. In cross-examination, she stated that she has filed the documents of the properties in which her husband is having share. She has not filed any document about the income of her husband. She admitted that she is residing along with her children in the ancestral property of her husband and she fulfilled her daily needs after obtaining the same from her father-in-law. In the month of February 2020, her elder daughter has got married and the expenses were borne by her father-in-law. She admitted that in the year 2017, there was a compromise between her and her husband. She denied that she is having income from her parents’ house. She also denied that she is running a dance class or organizing event management. From her cross-examination, nothing substantive could be extracted by her husband, which makes her dis-entitled for grant of monthly maintenance amount, rather her allegation that the husband is running a hotel Poonam and earing more than lakhs of rupees, could not be rebutted in her cross-examination. 15. NAW-1, husband is also stated in his examination-in-chief as per his reply to the application and denied his liability and financial status as shown in the maintenance application by the wife and filed the documents (exhibit NA-1 to NA-78). He stated in his evidence that, the wife is still residing with his father and he is taking every care of her. His father is giving Rs. 36,000/- per month to the wife for her 10 daily need and maintenance for her and her children. There is no income from the ancestral property situated at Mohali, Punjab. The wife is a professional lady engaged in boutique and fashion designing, dance class and organizing event management and earning sufficient amount for herself. In the year 2017, there was a compromise, between them, but she herself withdrawn from the compromise. She is suffering from BP, sugar, kidney, back bone pain and skin disease and huge amount spent in his medicine. She has filed the maintenance application without any reason only to harass the husband and to extract money from him. In cross-examination, he denied that the medical bills, which he has filed in the case are forged. In para 22 of his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know, as to whether the land on which hotel Poonam is situated, is recorded in his name or not. Hotel Poonam is situated in the mid of the city. He admitted that in the ground floor of the hotel, one ATM of the bank, one Vodafone agency and office of Haribhoomi newspaper is running and, in the terrace, the mobile tower of Vodafone company is erected. He further stated that there are 35 rooms in the hotel Poonam. In para 24 of his cross-examination, he stated that he, his father and his brother are the members of the joint family. Rs. 3-4 lakhs per month is the income from the hotel Poonam. Adjoining to their residential house, there are other houses, which were given on rent. He further stated that his joint family is having an agricultural land at village Pandripani adjoining to the National Highway and his younger brother is cultivating the crops. He also admitted that they 11 are having other joint family property at Frezarpur, Jagdalpur. In para 26 of his evidence, he stated that the income tax return has been submitted on the basis of his joint family income, and they are paying the income tax as per the partnership firm. He is having 25% share in the partnership firm and he filed his own income tax return. There is no document filed by him, which shows that his father is paying Rs. 36,000/- to his wife and children. In para 32, he stated that in the year 1998, his wife had started a boutique in the ground floor of the hotel, which was closed after one year. He shown his ignorance about dance classes running by her. 16. From the documents (exhibit NA-66, NA-67 and NA-68) which are copies of income tax return filed by the husband, it reveals that in the assessment year 2021-22, the total income of the husband was Rs. 4,17,390/- and in the assessment year of 2022-23, the total income of the husband was Rs. 4,35,130/-. In para 28 of his evidence, he stated that he has not filed the income tax return from the entire partnership firm and voluntarily stated that he has filed income tax return of his own. He also stated that, he is having 25% share in the partnership firm and as per para 24 of his cross-examination, the total monthly income from the hotel is Rs. 3-4 lakhs per month. From the entire evidence, it also comes that he is having other properties, which were given on rent. In the facts and situation, it cannot be said that the husband is having only income, which has been shown income tax return (exhibit NA-66, NA-67 and NA-68). Although from 12 the photographs produced by the husband with respect to the profession of the wife shows that she was engaged in some professional work, either of fashion designing or even management, but that itself are not sufficient to deny the maintenance amount to her. 17. Be that as it may, there is allegation and counter allegation against each other regarding their behaviour, but the fact remains that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s moral and legal duty to maintain his wife. 18. The scope and object of Section 125 of CRPC has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg’ 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 9 and 10 of its judgement has held that:- “9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. 1. 1. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: 13 “In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16) 16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.” 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442] , while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3) 3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.” 1 (2015) 6 SCC 353 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762] , while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15) 14 15. “… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.” 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6) 6. “… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 15 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .” 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346] , it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children”. 10) This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded 16 the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs, Sita Bai2, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.” 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil Kachwaha’ AIR 2015 SC 554, has observed in Para 8 of its order that:- “8. 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 17 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. ” 20. While deciding the case, the learned Family Court after considering the status of the parties and earning capacity of the husband as well as the wife and also the evidence produced by the parties with respect to their financial position, granted Rs. 10,500/- per month to the wife. 21. While considering the quantum of maintenance and entitlement, it is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged, so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. In the matter of ‘Rajnesh v. Neha’ 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 78 to 84 that: “78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the 18 applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain 34 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 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 19 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. 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 applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 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. 82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, 20 (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. 83. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : “1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 21 9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.” 22. So far as the income tax return of the husband and his yearly income shown in the copy of said income tax return, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the income tax return is not the conclusive proof of yearly income of the husband for grant of maintenance amount and it is not an accurate guide of real income. In the matter of “Kiran Tomar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another” 2022 SCC Online SC 1539, in Para 10 of its judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “10. On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they 22 were accustomed during the time when they were staying together. The two children are aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, and their needs have to be duly met.” 23. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has not considered the application of the wife in its right perspective and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,500/- to her, which is payable from the date of application, is on lower side and looking to the financial condition and status of the husband, the wife is entitled for higher amount towards her maintenance. The submissions made by learned counsel for the husband that the wife was granted Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendent lite in divorce proceeding and the same has not been adjusted in the order of maintenance in the present case is concerned, it is submitted by the parties and reflected from the document (exhibit NA-78) that the divorce proceeding has come to an end by the judgment dated 08.12.2023. Therefore, non- consideration of the maintenance pendent lite granted in divorce proceeding, would not affect the quantum of maintenance in the present case. 24. As this Court has found that the income shown in the income tax return is not the accurate guideline to determine the quantum of monthly maintenance and the monthly income of the husband is more than the income shown in the income tax return, from the entire 23 evidence, it can be considered that the monthly income of the husband is at least not less than one lakh, but more than that. However, for consideration of granting maintenance to the wife, in view of the evidence available on record, Rs. 1 lakh per month can be considered to be the income of the husband. 25. In the matter of “Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, Nee Nandy” 2017 (14) SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. 26. From the aforesaid consideration as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to grant of maintenance and its quantum, as has been held in the case of “Anju Garg”, “Rajnesh v. Neha”, “Kiran Tomar” and “Kalyan Dey Chowdhury” (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the wife is entitled for a higher amount than the amount awarded by the learned Family Court towards the monthly maintenance to her. Therefore, this Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- per month to the wife as monthly maintenance amount from the husband. In view of the judgment of “Rajnesh v. Neha”, the maintenance amount is payable from the date of application. The amount of maintenance, which has already been paid by the husband in the present case, is liable to be adjustment on the total amount of maintenance. 24 27. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 filed by the husband is bereft of merits and hereby dismissed, and the Criminal Revision No. 480 of 2024 filed by the wife is partly allowed. 28. The parties are at liberty to claim enhancement/ modification/ alteration/ set-aside the order of maintenance in changed circumstances, if the occasion so arises. 29. The record of the Family Court be sent back along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved