1 2025:CGHC:18961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1079 of 2022 1 - Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Patel Aged About 40 Years Occupation Service , In Cspdcl Korba (East) As Assistant Grade Ii, R/o Village Saraipali , Thana And Tahsil Dabhra , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Padmini Patel W/o Shri Virendra Kumar Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Boirdadar Malidipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Ekant Patel S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Patel Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Padmini Patel W/o Shri Virendra Kumar Patel, R/o Village Boirdadar Malidipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate in For Respondents : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate CRR No. 1102 of 2022 1 - Smt. Padmini Patel W/o Virendra Kumar Patel Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Dependent , R/o Village Boirdadar, Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.09 15:14:37 +0530 2 2 - Minor Ekant Patel S/o Virendra Kumar Patel Aged About 6 Years Through Legal Guardian Smt. Padmini Patel(Mother) R/o Village Boirdadar, Malidipa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Subhash Chandra Patel Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Service In C.S.P.D.C.L. Korba(East), Electric Operator Class 2, R/o Village Saraipali Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/04/2025 1. Both these criminal revisions are listed on motion hearing matters, and with the consent of the parties, both these criminal revisions are being heard finally. 2. Both these criminal revisions are arising out of the common proceeding and from a common judgment dated 27.09.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, in MJC No. F-63/2019, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. 3. The Criminal Revision No. 1079/2022 has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the impugned order dated 27.09.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, in MJC No. F-63/2019, whereby an amount of total Rs. 7500/- has been granted as monthly maintenance amount against him, and he is challenging his liability to pay the same. 4. The criminal revision No. 1102/2022 has been filed by the petitioners who are the wife and minor son of the respondent, in whose favour, a total 3 amount of Rs. 7500/- has been granted as monthly maintenance amount by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, in MJC No. F-63/2019 vide order dated 27.09.2022, and they are claiming a higher amount towards the maintenance. 5. The brief facts of the case in both these revisions are that the applicant No. 1, Smt. Padmini Patel was married to the non-applicant Virendra Kumar Patel on 01.07.2014 as per their rites and rituals. After the marriage, they were residing at the Village- Saraipali. While residing at her matrimonial house, the family members of the non-applicant started harassing her for the demand of dowry. She stayed there for about six months, and thereafter the non-applicant took her to Korba, which is his workplace. On being demanded by the brother-in-law of the non-applicant, he demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from the applicant No. 1/ wife and when she showed her inability to give Rs. 2 lakhs, the non-applicant/ husband started raising a quarrel and committed marpeet with her. Despite convincing the non-applicant/husband, the matter could not be resolved. By the lapse of time, the harassment of her became aggravated and ultimately on 09.07.2015, he left her at her parents’ house. At that time, she was pregnant for about eight months and subsequently delivered a male child (applicant No. 2) on 08.08.2015. The non-applicant has not taken any care of his wife and child. The applicants are residing with her parents, her father is a retired employee and is facing hardship. 6. On 20.05.2019, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the non-applicant/ husband. She pleaded in her application that the non-applicant/ husband is employed at Chhattisgarh State Electricity Power Generation Company Limited (C.S.P.G.C.L.) and posted at Assistant Grade- II at Korba (East) and his net monthly salary is Rs. 36,823/- and he is 4 capable to pay the maintenance amount to the applicants and claimed Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance. 7. The non-applicant/ husband denied the claim of the applicants and has filed his reply stating that he or his family members have never harassed her for the demand of dowry. The behaviour of the applicant No. 1 was not good with him and his family members. She, on her own, left the company of her husband and went to her parents’ house. He made various efforts to bring her back, but she raised a quarrel with him and was not ready to come back. When he had gone to the hospital after the birth of his child, he was not permitted by her parents to meet them. The applicant No. 1/ wife is a working woman and able and capable of earning for herself and her son. She does not want to live with him and therefore, she is residing separately without any sufficient cause, and she is not entitled to any maintenance. 8. The learned family Court has framed issue and after recording statement of the parties, partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1/ wife and Rs. 2,500/- per month to the applicant No. 2/ son which is payable from the date of application i.e. 20.05.2019. It is also ordered that the amount of interim maintenance paid by the non-applicant/ husband shall be adjusted towards the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicants. The said order of maintenance is challenged by both parties as per their respective claims. 9. Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. R. No. 1079/2022, would submit that the applicant no. 1/wife is residing separately from him without any sufficient cause and despite his various efforts to bring her back, she refused to join the company of her husband and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance as she is residing separately without any sufficient cause. The applicant No. 1 is a working woman, and she is earning a sufficient amount for herself and her son. The applicant No. 1/ wife is an educated lady and works as an accountant and earns Rs. 10,000/- per 5 month, she also gives tuition to the students and earns a sufficient amount. He would further submit that the non-applicant/ husband was paying the interim maintenance to the applicants regularly, but by the final order of maintenance, the amount is awarded from the date of application, and therefore, a huge amount of arrears is accumulated, which caused a financial burden upon the non-applicant/husband. It is also submitted by him that from the evidence available on record, it has been proved by the non- applicant/ husband that the applicant No. 1 is not ready to live with him and she, on her own will residing separately, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 10.Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in Cr. R. No. 1102/2022, would submit that due to the harassment given by the respondent/ husband, the applicant No. 1 was compelled to reside separately from her husband. The respondent/husband has completely neglected and has not taken any care to maintain them. The respondent/ husband is employed at C.S.P.G.C.L. and earning sufficient amount and his current salary is more than Rs. 45,000/- per month. as per the income tax return of the non-applicant/ husband (Ex-P/13), his net income for the assessment year of 2021-22 was Rs. 5,01,732/- and thus, he is having sufficient income and able to pay sufficient amount to the applicants as per his income and status of living. It is also submitted that the non-applicant/ husband has 2.00 acres of land in his own name and about 5 acres of land in the name of his father, from which a sufficient amount has been earned from their agricultural land. The applicant No. 2/ son is presently aged about 10 years, and he is a school-going child; much amount is required for his education. The applicants are entitled to live in the same status as her husband is living. She depends upon her father, who is a retired employee, and she is facing financial hardships for her maintenance and livelihood. Considering the present cost of living, requirement of expenses in day-to- 6 day life and also the income of the non-applicant/ husband, Rs. 7,500/- is very meagre and the applicants are entitled to a higher amount for their maintenance. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Family Court. 12.The applicant No. 1 has examined herself as AW/1, Parmanand Patel (AW/2) and proved the documents (Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/15). The non-applicant/ husband has examined himself as NAW/1, Bharat Lal Patel (NAW/2) and has proved the documents (Ex-D/1 to Ex-D/16). 13.The applicant No. 1 (AW/1) has stated in her evidence as per the application filed by her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in cross-examination, she stated that she is a postgraduate in commerce, her son has been admitted to Karmel School, Raigarh. She denied that the copy of the income tax return of the non-applicant/ husband (Ex-P/13) is a forged document. She further stated that her father was a Revenue Inspector who is presently retired. Her father has given the revenue documents (Ex-P/1 and P/2, P/5 and P/6). She further admitted, at the time of their marriage, there was no demand for dowry made by the non-applicant/husband. After six months of marriage, she was taken by her husband to Korba, which is the workplace of her husband. During her stay at Korba, she conceived a pregnancy, but she denied that the quarrel had started at Korba. She further stated that at the time when her father-in-law met with an accident, she was in her matrimonial house. On 09.07.2015, when she came from her matrimonial house to her parents’ house, she was pregnant and after the birth of her son, she has not gone back to her matrimonial house and even at Korba also. She further admitted that she has not taken any steps for the restitution of the conjugal rights. She voluntarily stated that a family meeting was convened on her instance, which was held after two months of the birth of her son. She denied that her husband had not demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from her and also 7 denied that her husband had not committed any marpeet with her. On 09.07.2015, her husband and in-laws left her at her parents’ house. On that day itself, there was a quarrel between the family members of the parties. She denied that she is not willing to reside with her husband and avoiding the conjugal rights. She admitted that after filing the application, by the non- applicant/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she lodged a complaint against her husband and his family members for dowry harassment and filed the present application for maintenance. She admitted that before marriage, she was working at Ascent College, but she denied that after coming back to her parents’ house, she rejoined her service. She also admitted that between 06.06.2017 to 04.10.2017, she worked as Monitering and Abulation cum Accountant at Nishchay Samiti. She denied that she is giving tuition to the students and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. 14.AW/2, Parmanand Patel who is the witness of the fact that when the applicant No. 1 was taken by her in-laws to her parents’ house, her father asked them about sudden reaching their then the non-applicant has disclosed that since, they have not paid Rs. 2 lakhs as demanded by him, he would not take her back. The non-applicant/ husband has also made an allegation of her conduct. After some days, he along with her elderly family members had gone to the house of the non-applicant/ husband to settle the dispute but the non-applicant and his parents does not give any heed to their proposal and stuck and demanding Rs. 2 lakh and even not ready to talk with them till the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs. He also stated that the non- applicant and his parents had not come in the sixth-day function after the birth of the child. In cross-examination, he remained firm in saying that on 09/07/2015, the non-applicant/ husband and his family members had taken the applicant No. 1 to her parents’ house. He also remained firm in the demand made by the non-applicant/ husband for Rs. 2 lakhs. 8 15.From the evidence of NAW/1, the non-applicant/ husband, the relation between the parties is not disputed. He denied in his cross-examination that they had not gone to left the applicant no. 1/ wife to her parents’ house. He admitted that he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the same was dismissed by the learned Family Court, and he has not filed any appeal against it. He admitted that since 09.07.2015, the applicant No. 1/ wife is residing at her parents’ house and depends upon him. He repeatedly came to the house of the parents of the applicant No. 1/ wife for bringing her back, but it is not there in his reply filed in the case. he has not made any Police complaint. He also admitted that on 09.07.2015, when the applicant No. 1/ wife came to her parents’ house, he had not provided any treatment to her till that time. He also stated that he was not invited in the sixth-day celebration after the birth of the child, therefore, he has not attained the function. He also did not know whether the information about the birth of the child was given to his parents or not. He did not know the name of his son. In which school he is studying, he did not know. He also did not ask about the fees and expenses of the education of his son. He also admitted that a dowry harassment case is pending against him. He admitted his salary slip (Ex-P/15) and liability to maintain the applicants upon him. He also admitted that he has not filed any application before any court for taking care of his son or his education. He also admitted that he has not having any information about any employment or earnings of the applicant No. 1/ wife, and there is no document available with him with respect to her income through the tuition. He has not made any complaint with respect to the conduct of the applicant No. 1/ wife. 16.NAW/2, Bharat Lal Patel, has stated in his evidence that on 09.07.2015 he along with the family members of the non-applicant/ husband had gone to the parents house of the applicant No. 1/ wife for bring her back but they faced misbehaviour from them and the applicant No. 1/ wife refused to come 9 with her husband. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know when the applicant No. 1/ wife was left at her parents’ house and who left her. He voluntarily stated that she alone came there. The father of the applicant No. 1 refused to send her back and said that after the delivery of the child, he would send her back. He is unaware of the income of the non-applicant/ husband from the agricultural field. 17.From the evidence of the witnesses, it is quite vivid that on 09.07.2015, the applicant No. 1/ wife, who was carrying a pregnancy of about eight months, was left by her husband and in-laws to her parents’ house, and thereafter, the non-applicant husband has not taken care of her. The non-applicant/ husband did not even know the name of her son, and did not know about his educational status. There is vague evidence with respect to the efforts made by him to bring back his wife. By the evidence laid by the parties, the learned family Court has rightly held that the applicant No. 1 has sufficient cause to reside separately from her husband, and she is residing with her parents. There is no evidence on record produced by the non-applicant/ husband that the applicant No. 1 is a working lady and earning sufficient income for her livelihood. It is the legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child who is residing with her parents. 18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1314 has held in Para 9 & 10 of its judgment. “9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 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 v. Meena and Ors. MANU/SC/0605/2014: (2015) 6 SCC 353 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 Code of Criminal Procedure have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [MANU/SC/0420/1987 (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 10 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.) [ MANU/SC/0719/1991: (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. 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1159/1996: (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) 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 [ MANU/SC/8286/2007: (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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 [MANU/SC/0067/1978: (1978) 4 SCC 70: 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 [ MANU/SC/0193/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri.) 787). 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [ MANU/SC/0248/2013: (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 the basic canon of law that it is the 11 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 v. Sita Bai MANU/SC/8286/2007: (2008) 2 SCC 316, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. So far as the next submission of the petitioner/husband with respect to the fact that the respondent/wife is an earning member and professionally qualified is concerned, the object behind the right to maintenance is to be considered. 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of “Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, 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 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 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 reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if a he required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high com living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of inc ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wile if he n able-bodied and has educational qualifications. 12 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depend on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living the the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The ma amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the the extremes ie. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should the 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 the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration: (1) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants d the claimant, (ii) 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, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source. 83. Section 20(2) of the DV 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 accustomed to in her matrimonial home." 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: (SCC OnLite Del para 8) "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 a 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. 9. Some guesswork 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 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act." 20.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, evidence available on record and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the non-applicant/ husband would not be able to prove that the applicant No. 1/ wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause and she is not entitled for any maintenance. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Family Court, holding the non-applicant/ husband liable to pay maintenance to the applicants. Therefore, the Cr.R. No. 1079/2022 filed by the non-applicant/ husband is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13 21.So far as, the claim of the applicants/ wife and child for grant of higher amount of maintenance are concerned, from the document (Ex-P/13) which is the assessment slip of income tax for the year 2021-22, the net yearly income of the non-applicant/ husband comes to Rs. 5,01,732/-. The non- applicant/ husband has not been denied from his employment with the C.S.P.G.C.L. The salary slip (Ex-P/15) of the non-applicant/ husband has also been filed, which is for the month of December 2018, and the net salary of the non-applicant/ husband was Rs. 31,295/-. The applicants are entitled to live in the same status as the non-applicant/ husband is enjoying. Along with the revision petition, the applicants have filed another salary sheet of the non-applicant/ husband which is for the month of June, 2020 and on that day the net salary of the non-applicant/ husband was Rs. 35,777/- which gives the fact of enhancement of the salary of the non-applicant/ husband in due passage of time. From the revenue document (Ex-P/3), it also reflects that the non-applicant/ husband owned certain agricultural land at Village- Saraipali, and definitely he is earning from the said land also. Therefore, considering the entire surrounding circumstances and evidence laid by the parties, the amount of Rs. 7,500/- granted to the applicants as a monthly maintenance amount is on the lower side. 22.Another submission made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that he was paying the interim maintenance regularly to the applicants, and the order of final maintenance is passed payable from the date of application, and thereby, a huge amount of arrears is accumulated, which caused a financial burden on the non-applicant/ husband. The submissions made by learned counsel for the non-applicant/ husband do not have any merit, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) and also in view of para 18 of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, in which the amount of 14 interim maintenance paid by the non-applicant/ husband is made adjustable to the amount of maintenance granted to the applicants. 23.From the aforesaid discussions, the Criminal Revision No. 1102/2022 filed by the applicants is partly allowed. The applicant No. 1/ wife is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-, and the applicant No. 2/ son is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- from the non-applicant. It is ordered that the non-applicant shall pay the amount of maintenance of a total Rs. 15,000/- to the applicants. The enhanced amount of maintenance is payable from the date of filing of the present criminal revision by the applicants, i.e. from 12.10.2022. 24.The parties are at liberty to claim modification / enhancement / reduction / setting aside the maintenance order if the situation arises in changed circumstances. 25.The Cr. R. No. 1079/2022 is dismissed, and the Cr. R. No. 1102/2022 is partly allowed in the above mentioned conditions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika