JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Revision is directed against the order dated 27.08.2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C.(Crl) Misc Case No. 571/2022 under Section 127 Cr.P.C whereby the maintenance amounts granted to the respondent wife and her child was enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- each. 3. The facts in a short compass required for disposal of this instant petition are as follows:- The 1st party Mamani Khatun (respondent herein) filed a case vide MR Case No.35/2015 under section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband/ 2nd party Safikul Islam (petitioner herein) seeking monthly maintenance for herself and her minor daughter Farhana Begum. Accordingly, the Court after hearing both the parties passed the order dated 01.09.2018 directing the 2nd party to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- in favour of the 1st party and Rs.3,000/- for her minor daughter. Accordingly, the 2nd party has been paying monthly maintenance. Now the minor daughter is studying in Class-Ill at Kalgachia Royal Global Private School. In view of hike of prices of uniform, books, copies, school fees and tuition etc.Rs.3,000/- is not at all sufficient to meet her educational expenses. Moreover, due to soaring prices of essential articles of day to day life, it has become difficult on her part to maintain her minor daughter with meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- The further case of the 1st party is that she has been suffering from various ailments and while taking treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The Doctor advised her to undergo surgical operation which costs Rs.9,00,000/- as she was unable to procure the amount to meet the surgical operation, she had to return from Chennai without further treatment. As a result she is loosing her eye sight. In view of sharp increase of essential articles including medicines etc. Rs.4,000/- is not at all sufficient for her subsistenance. The 2nd party is a Constable of 8th ATFBN and his monthly salary more than Rs.45,000/-. Moreover, his property has also increased twice what he had before. He earns around Rs.1,50,000/- per month. In view of the above, the 1st party had prayed for enhanced maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- each for her and her minor daughter. The 2nd party submitted his written objection denying the contentions raised by the 1st party. Moreover, his property has also increased twice what he had before. He earns around Rs.1,50,000/- per month. In view of the above, the 1st party had prayed for enhanced maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- each for her and her minor daughter. The 2nd party submitted his written objection denying the contentions raised by the 1st party. The case of the 2nd party revealed from his written statement was as follows:- He is drawing around Rs. 41,000/- salary per month. However, he has to pay EMI for his car loan, personal loan, and for depositing LICI Premium. He has to spent Rs.36,961/- per month including payment of Rs.7,000/- as maintenance to the 1st party and her minor daughter. He is living in a joint family consisting of his old parents and younger brother. He does not have any source of income except monthly salary from the Government of Assam. It is stated that the 1st party has filed this case in order to harass him mentally and economically. So he has prayed for dismissing the petition filed by the 1st party. During the course of hearing both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contention. The learned Trial Court from discussion of the evidence and to the following findings admitted position of the case is that the Court passed the order dated 01.09.2018 in MR Case No.35/2015 under section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- in favour of the 1st party and Rs.3,000/- in favour of her minor daughter. Accordingly, the 2nd party has been paying maintenance. Almost seven years have passed as on today from the said order. PWI Mamani Begum in her evidence has stated that the educational expense of her minor daughter Farhana Begum who is studying at Class-V at Royal Global English Medium School, Kalgachia have increased considerably. The tuition fees, school admission fees, conveyance expenses have also increased substantially. For the last 1st year her daughter has been suffering from illness on both sides on her neck and her lymph glands for which she is under medical treatment. But her health condition has not recovered yet. 1st party does not have source of income. She has been suffering from ailment due to deformity of her nose following her fall on the ground. All the essentials of day to day life including medicines, food, clothes etc. have sharply increased. But her health condition has not recovered yet. 1st party does not have source of income. She has been suffering from ailment due to deformity of her nose following her fall on the ground. All the essentials of day to day life including medicines, food, clothes etc. have sharply increased. Therefore, Rs.4,000/- is not at all sufficient for her substenance. DW1 Safikul Islam is the 2nd party of this case. During evidence (cross-examination), he has clearly stated that his daughter Farhana Begum is studying in class-VI in a private school. She requires school admission fees, monthly tuition fees fees for private tuition and also expenditure for her educational materials such as books and other items." He has also admitted that all the essentials of day to day life, educational expenses and medical expenses including medicines have increased substantially. DW1 in this evidence (cross-examination) has clearly stated that he is monthly gross salary is Rs.55,000/-although he has not submitted his latest salary slip. He has also stated that his father is a retired Additional S.P. and his younger brother is married and he is a business man by profession. Therefore it is proved from his evidence that he does not have any liability to maintain his parents and moreover, his brother is independent having his income m his business. 4. The learned Family Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record and also the fact that the original maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- for the wife and Rs. 3,000/- for the minor child was granted seven years back and since then the prices of essential commodities have increased many-fold, of which judicial notice can be taken proceeded to pass the order granting maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- to the wife/present respondent and Rs. 12,000/- for the minor child totalling to Rs. 24,000/- per month. Aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner husband. 5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Court below amounts to nearly 50% of the salary of the petitioner who has no other income and in this regard learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy , (2017) 14 SCC 200 , wherein it was observed as follows:- “15. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy , (2017) 14 SCC 200 , wherein it was observed as follows:- “15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-20152 awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95,527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari 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 dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs 23,000 to Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son.” 6. Based on the above, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the total quantum of maintenance needs to be reduced to a maximum 25% of the salary of the petitioner. 7. Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the aforesaid submissions and stated that besides his salary, the petitioner has other income from agricultural sources and in fact he is a rich person. 8. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Harminder Kaur Vs. 7. Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the aforesaid submissions and stated that besides his salary, the petitioner has other income from agricultural sources and in fact he is a rich person. 8. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Harminder Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh , 2002 Supreme (Del) 20 , wherein the Delhi High Court has come up with a formula which can be reproduced below:- “(3) IN the aforesaid perspective, income has to be equitably apportioned for maintenance of wife and the child. If we divide income of the respondent, i. e. Rs. 12,000/- in five units, two units for adults and one unit for young child, then the wife is supposed to get maintenance @ Rs. 4,800. 00 per month and the child is also supposed to get Rs. 2,400. 00 per month. In all, the petitioner must get Rs. 7,200. 00 per month as maintenance. This figure may be rounded off to Rs. 7,000. 00 keeping some margin for extra expenses of an earning husband. The petition is according allowed and the amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs. 2,000. 00 per month to rs. 7,000/- per month with effect from the date of the application. Litigation expenses are also increased from rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 5,000. 00.” 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 10. The Apex Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra) had taken note of the decision in Kulbhusan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari & Anr. (1970) SCC 129 which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the respondent is entitled to a maximum of 25% of the husbands salary. 11. A perusal of the aforesaid judgement in Kulbhusan Kumar (supra) would show that the while Apex Court approved of the decision of the High Court awarding maintenance to the wife subject to a upper limit of the 25% of the husband’s income, it has also to be noted that the high Court had also granted maintenance to the daughter living with her mother subject to a limit of the 15% of the husband’s income, which was also not interfered with by the Apex Court. Therefore, the total quantum of maintenance granted in the said case comes to 35% of the husbands net salary. Therefore, the total quantum of maintenance granted in the said case comes to 35% of the husbands net salary. In the instant case, the admitted income of the husband/petitioner is Rs. 54,994/- per month. 35% of the said income would come to Rs. 19,247/-. 12. In the cited case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra) the Apex Court had fixed to Rs.20,000/- per month for the respondent’s wife and son on a net salary of Rs. 95,000/- per month but this was in a circumstance where the husband had got married for a second time and had a child from the second marriage. Although, in the present case, in course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had also married for a second time, no such pleading to that effect is available in the learned trial Court records and therefore the said fact, even if true, cannot be taken into consideration by the Revisional Court. 13. In the present case, the total quantum of maintenance of Rs.24,000/- as against a net income of Rs. 54,994/- amounts to 43% of the said net income which appears to be excessive and breaches the ceiling of 25% plus 15% for mother and child respectively which was approved by the apex Court in Kulbhusan Kumar (supra) . Although, the Delhi High Court has, in the case of Harminder Kaur (supra) , devised a formula for apportionment of maintenance, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the husband is required to provide maintenance to such extent as would allow the wife and child to live as per the standards she was used to before separation. That need not necessarily require that, in all cases, apportionment of the income of the husband in absolute equal measure is to be made between husband, wife and child. The husband may be having a very high level of income but yet the entire amount may not be used for monthly expenses for necessities/comfort/luxuries of life. In others words, in order to maintain the living standards of the family, it is only the required part of the total disposable income of the husband that is generally used for such purpose while the rest goes into savings/investments. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept and apply the aforesaid formula in the facts of the present case. In others words, in order to maintain the living standards of the family, it is only the required part of the total disposable income of the husband that is generally used for such purpose while the rest goes into savings/investments. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept and apply the aforesaid formula in the facts of the present case. As held by the Apex Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra) maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the Court would be justifying in moulding the claim for the maintenance based on various factors and another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the income of the husband is accrued on account of his labour alone and since the wife is living separately there is no contribution on her part towards maintaining the household. For that reason also, absolute equal apportionment of the income of the husband may not be called for or warranted. 14. Furthermore, although it is contended that the petitioner has various other expenses in the form of EMI of his car loan, personal loan, LIC premium etc, the same are not deductible or to be taken into consideration. It is only the statutory deduction of income tax, GPF etc. that can be taken into account and in fact the some of deductions have been taken care of while calculating the net income of the petitioner as Rs. 54,994/-. However, it appears that no income tax has been deducted while arriving at the aforesaid figure. Since the annual income of the petitioner would exceed Rs.6,00,000/- he would also be liable to pay income tax thereby further reducing his net income. 15. Having regard to the above, the total maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court needs to be reduced. Considering the fact that both mother and child have been awarded the same amount towards maintenance i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per month, the award amounted to the child is reduced by Rs. 4,000/- i.e. to Rs. 8000/- and thereby the total maintenance award would come to near about 35% which should be in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in Kulbhusan Kumar (supra). 16. 12,000/- per month, the award amounted to the child is reduced by Rs. 4,000/- i.e. to Rs. 8000/- and thereby the total maintenance award would come to near about 35% which should be in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in Kulbhusan Kumar (supra). 16. It has also been contended that on behalf of the respondent that the maintenance has been awarded w.e.f the date of the order but, that it is the settled position of law that the award should relate back to the filing of the application and in this regard, learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Calcutta Court in Seema Agarwal Vs. Sudarshan Agarwal & Anr. 2024 Supreme (Cal) 735 which has followed the decision in Rajnesh Vs. Neha , MANU/SC/0833/2020 wherein it has been held that in all cases of compensation, the order should take effect from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of the order. 17. It was held by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) that it would be interest of the justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 18. Having regard to the above, it is held that the respondent would be entitled to maintenance w.e.f the date of application for enhancement before the learned Family Court. It may be mentioned that the said prayer has been made in the connected revision petition No. 498/2025 filed by the present respondent seeking enhancement of maintenance and its payment from the date of application. 19. The revision petition partly allowed in the terms of the aforesaid directions.