Dr. Sidhartha Sinha @ Siddarth Sinha … v. 1. State of Jharkhand 2.Leena Sinha
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 300 of 2022 ----- Dr. Sidhartha Sinha @ Siddarth Sinha …… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2.Leena Sinha …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Hemant Kr.Shikarwar, Advocate : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate ----- JUDGMENT CAV on:09.12.2022 Pronounced on:19.05.2023 This Criminal Revision No.300 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by Sri Nilesh Kumar Sinha, the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Ramgarh in Original Maintenance Case No.89 of 2015 by which the maintenance case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C on behalf of the O.P.No.2 i.e. wife has been allowed directing the petitioner i.e. Husband to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 22.04.2015. The O.P. No.2 i.e. wife had filed Original Maintenance Case No.89 of 2015 against the petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 2. The case of the O.P.No.2 i.e. wife, in brief, is that the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 was solemnized on 24.06.2011 according to the Hindu Rities and Customs at Ramgarh and after marriage both lived together as husband and wife at Hazaribagh. It is stated that at the time of marriage father of the O.P.No.2 had given Rs.10,000,00/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs) as 2 dowry to the petitioner. Thereafter on 30.06.2011 they went to Darjeeling for ‘Honeymoon’ and stayed there till 06.07.2011. Thereafter from 07.07.2011 to 27.07.2011 they had gone to Pune and stayed there. However, after she arrived at Ranchi Airport on 27.07.2011 no one came from her matrimonial side for more than 3-4 hours at Ranchi Airport and then she went to her parental home. Thereafter she tried to contact her husband and her in-law members but no one gave any response. She has asserted that she never refuted to come back with her husband and she is still ready to go to matrimonial home with her husband with full dignity. She has further stated that neither her husband nor her husband’s father and mother tried for Bidai and she has been subjected to cruelty and torture by her in-laws on phone and for which she had made a complain to her husband but he had paid no heed. 3. It is further stated that her husband has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 13.02.2013 vide MTS Case No.38 of 2013 to save his skin and in the said case the O.P.No.2 had appeared several times except on two occasions and filed written statement stating therein that she is ready to live with her husband with full dignity. The matter was referred to mediation on 06.08.2013 and both petitioner and O.P.No.2 had appeared before the Mediation Centre on 05.09.2013 and it was adjourned to 10.09.2013 but due to high fever the O.P. No.2 could not appear only for two occasions but the Mediation Centre returned back the case to the court by observing that mediation has failed without giving further opportunity to O.P.No.2. It is further stated that even on 11.04.2014 learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held reconciliation and directed the petitioner to bring the O.P.No.2 from her parental house and thereafter on 18.04.2014 she was taken to her matrimonial home by the petitioner where 3 she lived from 18.04.2014 to 23.04.2014 in Hazaribagh. Thereafter on 24.04.2014 both the petitioner and O.P.No.2 came to the court below and had shown their willingness to live together and on that very day the petitioner voluntarily prayed for withdrawal of MTS Case No.38 of 2013 and which was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 24.04.2014. However, after disposal of said MTS Case No.38 of 2013 on 24.04.2014 the petitioner had violated the order and insisted that the O.P.No.2 should go to her matrimonial home and when she refused then she was brutally assaulted by her husband i.e. the petitioner and she was pressurized to go to her parental home. In the meantime, the wife i.e. O.P.No.2 also filed MTS No.191 of 2013 on 19.11.2013 for grant of maintenance but it stood dismissed. 4. Thereafter the petitioner had filed MTS No.98 of 2014 on 28.04.2014 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag for annulment of marriage on the ground of desertion and mental torture. On receipt of notice, the wife i.e. O.P. No.2 appeared before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh on 23.06.2014. However, due to intervention of the dignified and respected persons of their families, the matter was resolved
Facts
between the parties and accordingly on 26.04.2014 the petitioner became ready to keep her back with full dignity and thereafter the O.P.No.2 i.e. wife came to her matrimonial home on 26.06.2014 and started residing on her matrimonial home. Thereafter on 22.07.2014 the petitioner has withdrawn the divorce petition bearing M.T.S No.98 of 2014. It is further stated that between 26.04.2014 to 04.12.2014 while the wife i.e. O.P. No.2 was in matrimonial home then marriage between the petitioner and O.P.No.2 was consummated 4 and they were living marital life. However, suddenly on 04.12.2014 she was thrown outside her matrimonial home after being brutally assaulted and then the O.P.No.2 went to Mahila Police Station and lodged Sanha against the husband on 11.12.2014 for assaulting her on 03.12.2014 and 04.12.2014. 5. Thereafter the petitioner again filed MTS No.18 of 2015 for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.01.2015. 6. Thereafter the O.P.No.2 had filed Original Maintenance Case No.89 of 2015 before learned Principal District Judge, Ramgarh. She has further stated that after filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner the O.P.No.2 is residing with her old and retired father and mother who have two more unmarried daughter and one son who is pursuing his study and all are dependent upon the father of the O.P.No.2 who is a retired old man. It is further stated that the petitioner is a Government Radiologist Doctor in Sadar Hospital and his monthly salary is more than Rs.50,000/- and he also earns Rs.30,000/- per month from other sources, hence total income of the petitioner is Rs.80,000/-. It is further stated that the O.P.No.2 is a poor lady having no source of independent income and is already struggling to meet the daily expense of her life on the account of non-payment of amount of maintenance. Hence, she has prayed for grant of Rs.20,000/- for maintenance amount per month. 7. The petitioner had appeared and filed his show cause on 21.11.2015 and had refuted the allegation of the O.P.No.2. It has been stated that no dowry was taken. It has further been stated that the O.P.No.2 came from Pune to Ranchi on the false pretext on the ground of illness of her mother and went to her Maika and 5 never came back till 10th of April, 2014 for the reason best known to her. In fact while coming from Pune when she reached Ranchi, the parent of the O.P.No.2 came at the airport and took her to her parental house. It is further stated that the petitioner personally went several times to her Sasural but on one and the other false ground the O.P.No.2 declined to come. The father- in-law wrote letter and sent legal notice also through his lawyer but all in vain. Ultimately the petitioner filed a suit for restitution of the conjugal right bearing Matrimonial Title Suit No.38 of 2013 which only support and corroborate the statement of the opposite parties. In fact the O.P.No.2 had been living at Patna and was in contact with one Umakant with whom she was having relation before the marriage also and as such she always avoided coming to her Sasural. It is further stated that in fact the opposite parties tried all their level best to bring the O.P.No.2 to her matrimonial house which all failed as a result of which the petitioner had to invoke the provision of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act giving rise to Matrimonial Title Suit No.38 of 2013, in which after seeking adjournment for several dates, the O.P.No.2 filed her written statement so as to delay and prevent the disposal of the Matrimonial Title Suit no.38 of 2013. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed Matrimonial Title Suit No.18 of 2015 on this ground only as the act of the O.P.No.2 amounted to cruelty upon her husband for which the Matrimonial Title Suit No.18 of 2015 has been filed for annulment of the marriage. It is further stated that the petitioner’s family always protested when the O.P.No.2 insisted upon going to her parental house unnecessarily as recently only the matter had been compromised but the O.P.No.2 who even after the compromise had been and while living in her matrimonial house 6 remain in contact with Umakant and for long hours, she used to be talking to him on phones even in the odd hours at night. It is further stated that demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs) is also false and the claim of torture upon O.P.No.2 is also false and incorrect because at no point of time the O.P.No.2 was subjected to ill treatment or even assaulted by any of the in-laws family. In fact on 04.12.2014 O.P.No.2 herself went away from the matrimonial house without seeking permission from her in- laws or informed and deliberately violating her undertaking given by her before the Principal Judge, Family Court in Matrimonial Title Suit no.98 of 2014 and on the contrary she went to the Sadar (Mahila) Thana, Hazaribag and narrated a false story of torture which was duly investigated by concerned police officer and found the allegation leveled as false and far from truth which would be evident from the report submitted by the Police Officer who also found that the O.P.No.2 herself does not want to live at her matrimonial house as she has having affairs with one Umakant. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Division Bench of this Court in F.A (DB) No.107 of 2017 vide Judgment dated 02.08.2018. 48. In view of the discussions made above, it is evident that the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month passed by the learned court below in favour of the O.P. No.2 is excessive as the O.P. No.2 has failed to prove the actual income of the petitioner before the pronouncement of the impugned order. 49. Therefore, this Court is inclined to partly set aside the impugned order by modifying it to the extent that the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C by the O.P No.2. 50. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 and Anju Garg and Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 22 reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 988, the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 is modified to the extent that the petitioner Dr. Sidhartha Sinha @ Siddarth Sinha shall pay Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. No.2 Leena Sinha from the date of filing of the application i.e. 22.04.2015 under section 125 Cr.P.C till she remarries. 51. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No.300 of 2022 is allowed in part with aforesaid modification in the order of the maintenance passed on 18.08.2021 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh. Saket/ A.F.R. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Arguments
Heard Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned APP for the State and Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that O.P.No.2 is not entitled to any maintenance as she has voluntarily left the company of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner and O.P.No.2 are no more husband and wife and the court of learned Family Court, Hazaribag in MTS No.18 of 2015 has allowed divorce by judgment dated 27.03.2017 and the said judgment was 7 challenged by the opposite party no.2 before the Jharkhand High Court vide F.A (DB) No.107 of 2017 and the said First Appeal was also dismissed on 02.08.2018 by High Court of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the O.P.No.2 is not entitled to any maintenance and she is self-employed and is able to maintain herself. It is stated that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is wholly perverse and unsustainable. It is submitted that no chit of paper has been filed by the O.P.No.2 to show the monthly income of the petitioner though she has received information through RTI and was aware of the fact that the petitioner has resigned from his services. It is submitted that although the learned court below has observed the earning of the petitioner as Rs.60,000/- per month but this fact has not been established by the opposite party. However, the learned court below has committed error and has given a finding of earning of the petitioner as Rs.80,000/- per month in view of the fact that the petitioner is a Government doctor and he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and apart from the said income Rs.30,000/- per month from other sources. The overall income taken to be around Rs.60,000 to 80,000/- per month. It is submitted that the petitioner has resigned from the service of the State on account of this facing acute problem and the copy of the certificate showing resignation of the petitioner dated 01.10.2015 was filed but on account of outbreak of corona virus, the learned court could not take into consideration while passing the impugned order. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated on oath on evidence that he had got no source of income and he is totally dependent upon his father for his livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken a huge amount of loan and he has been 8 paying EMI of Rs.7000/- per month for his vehicle, EMI of Rs.15,000/- for Ultra Sound Machine which are all reimbursed from earning of his father namely Dr. Suresh Kumar Sinha which is evident from the evidence adduced in the said case. It is submitted that the learned court also incorrectly observed that Rs.5000/- earning by O.P.No.2 is not sufficient for her to live at par what she was living at the place of husband who is a Government servant. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W-1 i.e. Leena Sinha (O.P.No.2) is exaggerated version of her evidence and her evidence is not believable and hence she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is submitted that P.W-2 namely Jalesh Kumar Sinha, P.W-3 namely Bibha Sinha and P.W-4 namely Anup Shekhar are the father, mother and brother of the O.P.No.2 and they have simply supported the case of the wife i.e. O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the learned court below has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month and has given the finding that the petitioner has not produced even a chit of paper to show that he has lost the Government job and different EMI are being paid by his father. It is submitted that the petitioner has resigned from his services which is evident vide Memo No.1983 dated 26.08.2021 issued by the office of the Deputy Superintendent, Sekh Bikhari Medical Hospital, Hazaribagh. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner is husband of the O.P.No.2 and it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife with full honour and dignity, 9 however, the petitioner has failed to do so. It is submitted that the P.W-1 to P.W-4 namely Leena Sinha, Jalesh Kumar Sinha, Bibha Sinha and Anup Shekhar have fully supported the case of the O.P.No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner is earning around Rs.80,000/- per month and hence no illegality has been committed by the learned court below while granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the O.P.No.2 and hence this Revision Application may be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has submitted that this Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that O.P.No.2 is wife of the petitioner and she has been thoroughly neglected and thrown out from the marital home of the petitioner. It is submitted that P.W-1 is wife (O.P.No.2) herself and she has fully supported her case during her evidence. It is submitted that P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5 namely Jalesh Kumar Sinha, Bibha Sinha and Anup Shekhar and Satyendra Dubey have fully supported the case of the O.P.No.2. It is submitted that the documents marked as exhibits reveal that the income of the petitioner is between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. It is submitted that even if, the petitioner is not earning then also his wife-O.P. No.2 is entitled to maintenance. It is submitted that petitioner has got huge ancestral properties having cars and landed properties and the father of the petitioner is a renowned doctor of Hazaribagh. 13. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as follows: (i) 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 988 (ii) Judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed in the case of 10 Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., arising out of Cr. Appeal No.1865 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.8768/2022) It is further submitted that in view of the above, this Revision Application may be dismissed. 14. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides. 15. It transpires that although both the parties were married on 24.06.2011 at Ramgarh, however, due to strained relationship between the parties a number of litigations were filed by both the sides. 16. It further reveals that the petitioner has filed MTS No.38 of 2013 for restitution of conjugal rights which was withdrawn due to compromise between the parties vide order dated 24.04.2014. Thereafter the petitioner had also filed MTS No.98 of 2014 for decree of divorce which was also withdrawn on 28.04.2014 on account of compromise. 17. However the petitioner had filed MTS No.18 of 2015 and thereafter the O.P.No.2 i.e. the wife had filed Original Maintenance Case No.89 of 2015 on 22.04.2015 under section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- against the petitioner and her in-laws. However, the learned court below while passing the impugned order has observed that the order covers only the O.P. No.1, i.e. the husband of the petitioner (i.e. petitioner herein before this Court) because parents of the husband are not the necessary parties in a case filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. 18. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed MTS No.18 of 2015 on 09.01.2015 and which was allowed and decreed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh vide 11 judgment dated 27.03.2017 by granting a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner i.e. the husband and against the O.P.No.2 i.e. the wife. Thereafter the O.P.No.2 had challenged the judgment and decree by filing F.A.No.107 of 2017 before the High Court of Jharkhand. 19. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that before passing the order of maintenance dated 18.08.2021, First Appeal No.107 of 2017 was filed by the O.P.No.2 i.e. the wife against the petitioner i.e. the husband which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 02.08.2018 and Division Bench of this Court has observed at Para-17 and Para-18 as follows:- “Para 17:- Institution of such vexatious false cases on false allegation definitely has an effect of entailing mental cruelty upon the other spouse. In the present case, evidence on record also shows that the petitioner-husband had gone into depression and was unable to attend his duties as a doctor for some period of time. The relationship between the parties, therefore, appears to have become so sour that it was unlikely to be revived. All emotional bounds between the parties have also dried up on account of such broken relationship. The learned Family Court found these instances as acts of mental cruelty, which we do not find any reason to disturb. The parties are 12 not in a position to lead a happy married life in such circumstances. The learned Family Court, however, rightly answered the issue of desertion against the petitioner as the minimum mandatory period of two years separation in terms of Section13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was not satisfied. The discussion on the material evidence on record, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, does not make out any grounds to interfere with the findings of cruelty rendered by the learned Family Court. the totality Para 18:- On and circumstances and for the reasons recorded herein above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. As prayed by the learned facts of 12 counsel for the appellant we leave it to the appellant to invoke the provision of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to approach the Family Court for grant of alimony as there are no such sufficient material pleadings or evidence on record to render any finding thereupon. Decree Accordingly.” 20. Thereafter the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- to the O.P.No.2 which was the prayer of the Original Maintenance Case No.89 of 2015. 21. It transpires that the learned Principal Judge has not framed any issue on the point of income of the husband i.e. the petitioner and the learned court below has held that the income of the petitioner is Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- and then directed the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- to the O.P.No.2. 22. The O.P. No.2 i.e. the wife has got examined five (05) witnesses in support of her case, who are as follows:- (i) P.W-1 is Leena Sinha i.e. the wife of the petitioner, (ii) P.W-2 is Jal Jalesh Kumar Sinha who is the father of the O.P.No.2, (iii) P.W-3 is Bibha Sinha (i.e. the mother of the O.P.No.2), (iv) P.W-4 is Anup Shekhar (i.e. the brother of the O.P.No.2) and (v) P.W-5 is one Satyender Dubey. 23. No document has been filed and marked as an Exhibit on behalf of the O.P.No.2 (wife). 24. The petitioner before the court below has got examined two witnesses who are as follows:- (i) OPW No.1 is Niranjan Rukhiyar and (ii) OPW No.2 is Dr. Sidharth Sinha i.e. the petitioner. 25. The following documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the court below, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-A is the certified copy of order sheet of 13 G.R.Case No.4399 of 2015 State vs. Dr. Sidharth Sinha & others wherein FRT was submitted against the accused in the case filed by the informant/petitioner u/s 498A, 406, 120B/34, 415 of IPC & ¾ of D.P. Act. (ii) Exhibit-B is the copy of protest petition filed by the petitioner Leena Sinha against her husband Dr. Sidharth Sinha and his parents. (iii) Exhibit-C is the certified copy of order dated 02.05.2018 passed in FA (DB) No.107/17 preferred by petitioner Leena Sinha against the judgment dated 27.03.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Hazaribag in MTS Case No.18 of 2017. (iv) Exhibit-D is the certified copy of judgment dated 27.03.2017 of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in MTS Case No.18/15, whereby the matrimonial suit was decreed on contest in favour of OP, Dr. Sidharth Sinha and marriage between the parties was dissolved on the ground of cruelty. 26. Thereafter the learned court below i.e. the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh has allowed the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C by the O.P.No.2 by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the O.P.No.2. Hence the appreciation of evidence of the witness will be necessary. 27. The learned court below after analyzing the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-5 has held that O.P.No.2 i.e. the wife has lived with the petitioner for about one and half month and for about five months in two different occasions in the year 2014 and they got separated in the year 2014. Although it transpires that the petitioner while examined 14 as OPW no.2 stated that he has resigned from the services but the learned court below has rejected the plea on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce a chit of paper to establish that he has lost his Government job. The learned court below also rejected the contention of the petitioner on payment of EMIs by his father by observing that no chit of paper was filed to establish that different EMIs regarding Vehicle loan, Education loan and Ultra Sound Machine loan was being paid by his father. 28. From scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-1 namely Leena Sinha, it appears that she has stated the same fact as stated during his maintenance case and has asserted that her husband is a Radiologist at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag and also earning Rs.30,000/-from other sources and total income of her husband in total Rs.80,000/-. She also admitted to have passed M.Sc. and she had remained in her matrimonial home till 04.12.2014 However, during cross-examination she also admitted that her earlier Maintenance Case No. 191 of 2013 was dismissed in the year 2013. She has also admitted that she was teaching in a Coaching Institute at Patna and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. She also admitted at paragraph 41 of the cross examination that she has not alleged anything regarding dowry torture and assault upon her in MTS No.38 of 2013 filed for restitution of conjugal rights. In MTS No.191 of 2013 and MTS No.98 of 2014 although she had filed show cause but she has not alleged anything regarding dowry torture and assault upon her. She has shown unawareness regarding the closure of the Radiology Clinic by the petitioner which was started after bank loan and also for payment of Car loan and Education loan by the father of the petitioner. 15 Thus, the evidence of P.W-1 is general in nature on the point of neglect by the petitioner. 29. P.W-2 is Jalesh Kumar Sinha who is father of the O.P.No.2 and has stated that petitioner had neglected his daughter i.e. O.P.No.2 and had not paid her anything till date. He has also admitted that MTS No.38 of 2013 and Divorce Case being MTS no.98 of 2014 was compromised and she has remained in matrimonial home. However, he has supported the case filed for grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 30. P.W-3 and P.W-4 are the Mother and Brother of the O.P.No.2 and they have also supported the case of the O.P.No.2 i.e. wife and they have also supported the claim of the O.P.No.2 and they have supported the claim of maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- of the O.P. No.2 to be paid by the petitioner. 31. P.W-5 is Satyender Dubey who is acquainted with both the sides and has also supported the case of the O.P.No.2. However, during cross-examination he has denied assault made by the petitioner upon the O.P.No.2 and he has also supported the case of O.P.No.2 for payment of Rs.20,000/- to her. 32. Thus, the O.P.No.2 i.e. the wife and her witnesses had not produced any document regarding income of the petitioner and also regarding the income from other sources before the learned court below. 33. So far the evidence of petitioner is concerned, OPW no.1 has been examined mainly on the point of cruelty on the O.P.No.2 (wife). However, he has also stated that the petitioner has lost his job and he has no source of income and is dependent upon his father. 34. OPW No.2 is the petitioner himself and he has denied for receiving the demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten 16 Lakhs). He has also stated that he has lost his job due to mental cruelty of the O.P.No.2 and is dependent of his father who is paying his Car loan of Rs.7,000/- per month, Education loan of Rs.15,000/- per month and also loan payment of Rs.15,000/- per month for starting Ultra Sound Machine. He has further stated during his cross examination that he used to pay Rs.5,000/- to the O.P.No.2 (wife) prior to decree of divorce but he is not paying the same. Thus, it is also evident from the evidence of OPW No.2 i.e. the petitioner that he was paying interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the O.P. No.2 till the decree of divorce was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh. 35. However, learned court below has made an error by observing at paragraph 27 of the impugned order that the petitioner is not paying any maintenance to the O.P.No.2 prior to passing of order of interim maintenance. The learned court below has also observed that the petitioner has failed to prove that the O.P.No.2 (wife) is living adulterous life and the petitioner has failed to prove that the O.P.No.2 (wife) has not remarried. However, learned court below has also observed that after dismissal of First Appeal by the High Court, the petitioner i.e. the O.P.No.2 was given liberty by the High Court to file a petition under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for grant of permanent alimony but during course of argument learned counsel for both the sides conceded that no such petition has been filed before any court by the petitioner- O.P.No.2 before any court. 36. The grant of Rs.20,000/- maintenance amount by the 17 petitioner to the O.P.No.2 appears to be excessive in view of the fact that no chit of paper has been produced regarding source of income of the petitioner by the O.P No.2. 37. It appears from the Annexure-3 of this Criminal Revision Application which is a Certificate dated 26.08.2021 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh that the petitioner (i.e. the husband) has resigned from the Shekh Bhikhari Medical College Hospital, Hazaribagh on 01.10.2015. 38. In the case of Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1539 the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.10.2022 has observed 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. 39. It has been held in 2022 SCC Online SC 1539 (Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) at paragraph 10 and 12, as follows:- “Para-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 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 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.” 12. At the same time, having heard submissions of both the parties, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to restore the Criminal Revision, namely, Criminal Revision No.1670 of 2022 to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for consideration afresh. In order to facilitate this exercise, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10 August 2022 is set aside and the Criminal Revision is restored to the file of the issue High Court, conditional with the directions 18 hereafter.” 40. However, the judgment passed in the case of Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (supra) is not relevant for the O.P.No.2 as in the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had remanded the matter before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to decide the Criminal Revision Application filed on behalf of the wife and children and the Supreme Court has further directed the husband to pay the arrears of maintenance amount and also to pay the entire arrears of maintenance amount. 41. Although the petitioner has also filed Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 showing his monthly income of Rs.25,090/-. The petitioner has also enclosed the documents of Ultra Sound Machine loan and has stated that he is paying the loan of EMI. However, the Income Tax Return filed by the petitioner cannot be relied upon as it were not filed before the lower court below by the petitioner. Moreover, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (supra) that Income Tax Return cannot be relied as the parties try to conceal the real income. 42. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200 that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife by placing reliance upon the judgment reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129 (Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari & Anr.). 43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 has held at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, as follows:- 19 “Para-77:- The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-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 the applicant has any professionally qualified; whether 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. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79:- In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] 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. Para-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 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. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112:- In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] , the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196, para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the 20 provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” Para-113:- It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 44. Therefore, from the above judgment, it is evident that 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. 45. Even in the case of Anju Garg and Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 988, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not interfered with the maintenance amount to the wife of Rs.10,000/- and it has been held in the above judgment at para-13, as follows:- “Para-13:-Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an ablebodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has 21 no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs.6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the appellant no.2-son.” 46. Even the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2018 in First Appeal No.107 of 2017 has observed that the petitioner will be at liberty to take step under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of permanent alimony. 47. It is evident that the O.P. No.2 (i.e. wife) has inflicted cruelty upon the petitioner and for which the petitioner has already been granted Decree of Divorce in MTS No. 18 of 2015 vide judgment dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh which was affirmed by