Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13710 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6658 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Mamta Dagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Gupta,Devraj Rajvedi,Manish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Puran Nath Shukla,Sarita Dwivedi Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri P.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. By means of instant criminal revision, revisionist has assailed the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, G.B. Nagar in Maintenance Case No.29 of 2022 (Mamta Vs. Saurabh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereby the respondent No.2 has been directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the revisionist as interim maintenance on monthly basis from the date of order dated 01.011.2023. 3. Revisionist is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded in the impugned order and she has prayed for enhancing the quantum of maintenance as awarded in the impugned order to the extent of Rs.3 lakh per month. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist's husband is working as a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/ Director at "APPINVENTIVE" Technologies Private Ltd. a Company based in Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. The respondent No.2 himself stated in his blogs that the company is one of the fastened growing startup companies in the country and it is likely to attain a Bench Mark of 100 crores in near future. Nevertheless the learned court below has awarded only a small sum of Rs.20,000/- as interim maintenance without taking into consideration the lavish life style led by respondent No.2 her husband. He has taken several insurance policies, for which he pays Rs.8,22,000/- annually and this fact itself shows his huge financial viability of respondent No.2 who was earlier married to some one else, but he divorced his first wife, when he gained high position and power. The respondent No.2 has admitted that his monthly salary is Rs.2,25,000/-, and even then learned court below has failed to consider the fact that at least 20-30% of monthly income should have been fixed for maintenance. He maintains a high cost luxury car Defender which costs to Rs.97 lakh. There are more than 10 cases pending between the parties, the opposite party has to incur huge litigation expenses for that she has to bear her routine checking and surviving expenses, such as food, water, clothes, electricity bills, repairs, damage, home etc. Respondent No.2 wanted to marry some other girl and for that reason he deserted his wife the revisionist just after six months of the marriage. The impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence on record. The revisionist is legally wedded wife of the respondent No.2 and it is his moral duty to bear her necessary and living expenses as she is not having any independent source of income. Therefore, the amount of interim maintenance awarded in the impugned order is liable to be enhanced substantially, so that the revisionist may be able to lead the life of which he has been accustomed when she was residing with the revisionist at her matrimonial home. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sahgal Vs. The District Judge, Dehradun and others 1977 (7), SCC 7 which is quoted in the impugned order also. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that amount of interim maintenance awarded in the impugned order is reasonable and the decision with regard to final maintenance has to be taken on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during hearing of the case. The revisionist is highly educated lady and she is able to earn a handsome amount on the basis of her own qualification and experience. The revisionist is posted as Director and Chief of the Business & Strategy at Appinventiv Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a Company based in Noida and she is resident of 2 Sector 72 Noida. Respondent No.2 has been residing separately from his wife since 14.08.2021, as well as 10 civil and criminal proceedings are pending between the parties due to their marital discord and revisionist has to bear substantial expenditure in prosecution and defence of those cases. The revisionist is living in the same house, where respondent No.2 lives alongwith other family members. The revisionist engage all the amenities available in the house at the cost of respondent No.2 like electricity, water bills and other amenities, for which respondent No.2 pays from his own resources. It is wrong to say that his annual earning is included in monthly salary of Rs.2,25,000/- as per latest salary slip, and details of his assets and liabilities are shown in the affidavit of assets, liability and expenditure filed by the respondent No.2 before the court below in compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021 (1) JIC 1(SC), whereas revisionist has concealed her income in her assets and liabilities in affidavit filed before the court below bearing date 22.11.2022. 7. The respondent No.2 further submitted that apart from revisionist, respondent No.2 has to bear responsibilities and expenses of his own parents to the tune of Rs.1 lakh per month on his dependent parents and wife, the annual income of his parents is Rs.10 Lakh. 8. He lastly submitted that respondent No.2 has taken a housing loan of Rs.1 crore and 50 lakh, for which he pays Rs.1,26,000/- EMI per month towards repayment of loan and only Rs.1 lakh remains with him from the revisionist bears on his necessary expenses including household expenses. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that income tax return for the assessment years 2019-2020, of which respondent No.2 is a director reveals his gross total income for said period is Rs.4,12,64,090/- and after necessary deductions the annual earning of Company is Rs.37,33,353/- and this amount must have increased in a period of five years. 3 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that no inference can be drawn regarding income of the respondent No.2 on the basis of income tax return 11. The revisionist has filed certified copy of the impugned order alongwith copy of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein revisionist has sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 Saurabh Singh has filed his affidavit of assets and liabilities in compliance judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra), wherein he has shown his occupation as Director and Chief of the Business & Strategy at Appinventiv Technologies Pvt. Ltd. B-25, Sector -58 Noida (UP). He has shown his date of marriage as 26.04.2021 with Mamta Dagar, he has shown in head of dependents i.e. his father aged about 68 years, his mother aged about 62 years, and wife aged about 33 years. The couple has no issue. He has shown his monthly salary as Rs.02,25,000/- as per latest salary slip. He has also acquired immovable property in Varanasi on 01.02.2013 and 26.04.2014 for which he has paid Rs.9,50,000/- each at the time of sale deed. He has shown himself as director of as many as four companies namely “Shape and You Wellness Private Ltd.; JANGAN Connect Private Ltd.; Bharatakies Production Pvt. Ltd.; Bharatalks Media Private Ltd. He has shown his outstanding financial liability as Rs.7,77,20,400/-. The revisionist has stated in her affidavit of assets and liabilities that her general monthly expenses are Rs.3 lakh approximately. She has filed a case for Domestic Violence Act against her husband in the court of Civil Judge(JD)/ FTC I Gautam Budh Nagar and a suit for divorce has also been pending between the parties under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act. She stated that her husband and she incorporated a company namely Shape and You Wellness Private Ltd in which both are directors, but there is no earning from this company. She pays Rs.12,500/- per month as EMI for a car purchased by her, her husband Saurabh Singh is only son in his family. He is Director and CEO of a number of companies. 4 12. The revisionist has filed photographs of the cars like BMW, Defender with which he has got himself photographed. He is first owner of Appinventiv Technologies Pvt. Ltd. She has also filed photograph of a luxurious house allegedly possessed by respondent No.2 and a copy of cover of Magazine Forbes India Ltd. April, 2021 in which respondent No.2 is shown amongst iconic and vibrant leaders alaongwith some other interpernure. He is also shown as influencer, he has opened new office Chandigarh in Mohali, Chandigarh and his photograph is shown as annexure No.3 to the affidavit. Revisionist has also filed a number of photograph and documents as annexure to supplementary affidavit which goes to show the luxurious life style of the revisionist. Even, if we leave aside the assumed income of the revisionist derived from various companies with which he is associated and we take into consideration only the statement of assets and liabilities filed by respondent No.2 in compliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) wherein he has shown his monthly income as Rs.2,25,000/-as per his latest salary slip. The amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order deserves to be enhanced substantially on the grounds taken in instant revision. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR (2017) SC 2383 placing reliance on a earlier judgment in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 129, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependant on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Therefore, without disturbing the broad findings of fact given by learned court below, the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant is being modified and enhanced as below:- 5 14. The revisionist will receive maintenance from her husband Saurabh Singh from date of filing of application dated 22.12.2021 for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. The arrear of maintenance from the period 22.12.2021 to January, 2025 will be calculated accordingly and shall be paid by respondent No.2 to the revisionist in three equal monthly installments within four months. Apart from that revisionist will pay and continued to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from February, 2025 onwards during the pendency of maintenance case before the court concerned. 15. The revision stands partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Ashish/- 6 Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad