High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA For the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist works as an Engineer in Accenture India Divya SEZ, Whitefield, Banglore. The marriage of revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 6.5.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals and a daughter, namely, Aarna was born out of wedlock of the spouse Sidharth Jain and Neha Jain. She was studying in class 5th in the year 2024 when present revision was filed. The original applicants filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for themselves wherein she claimed Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. He next submitted that according to the applicants father of applicant no. 1 spent huge some of money in the marriage which took place on 6.5.2011 but after the marriage the behavior of opposite party and his family members changed towards the applicant and they demanded additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 crores and started harassing her due to non fulfillment of additional demand dowry. She was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture at her matrimonial home by opposite party and his family members every now and then.

5. On 8.7.2016, opposite party and his family members engaged act of maar-peet and torture with the applicant no. 1. She called her father and when he reached at his place, the opposite party and his family members also misbehaved with him and had thrown her out from the house. The applicant no. 1 is residing at her parental house along with her minor son. She has not any independent source of earning.

6. It is next submitted that both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective claim before learned court below. Applicant no. 1 Neha Jain and her father Yogesh Jain appeared as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 before learned court below whereas the opposite party appeared as witness as D.W. 1 before learned court below in support of his stand taken in written statement. He next submitted that learned court below has estimated and observed in paragraph no. 21 in judgement and order that applicant no.1 is entitled to receive the maintenance from her husband according to standard of living which she would have been accustomed to live when she was residing with the revisionist at her matrimonial home in Banglour. Opposite party is living a luxurious life.

7. On perusal of academic document, it appears that daughter of applicant no. 1 is studying in D.P.S. school, Noida and applicant has stated that her father is bearing educational expenses of her daughter. Applicant no. 1 has also filed receipt of school fee paid for applicant no. 2, therefore, keeping in view social and economic status of the parties and after deducting the amount paid by opposite party towards installment of bank loan his net salaried income comes around Rs.108,642/- and when this amount is divided by three among the applicant no. 1 and 2 and opposite party, the share comes to Rs. 36,500/- therefore, learned court below has fixed Rs. 36,500/- as maintenance in favour of applicants from the date of filing application to from the date of judgement dated 19.10.2016.

8. Learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 20 of impugned judgement that opposite party is paying Rs. 92,379/- towards repayment of loan taken from the bank and this amount is liable to be subtracted from his gross salaried income Rs. 20,1021/-.

9. It is further submitted that methodology adopted by learned court below while fixing quantum of maintenance payable to the applicants, is not proper. As per information received from revisionist, the revisionist has already been paid Rs. 3,22,874/- towards maintenance to the applicant pursuant to the impugned judgement and order. Learned court below has taken into consideration the salaried income of the revisionist from the year 2016 to 2022 while fixing maintenance from October 2022 to the date of judgement and thereafter whereas revisionist has filed a chart of his net salaried income which reveals that in October, 2016 his net salaried income was Rs.75,046/-, in October 2017 Rs 88,489/-, in October 2018, Rs. 104,425/-, in October 2019, 108058/-, in October 2020, 120,976/-, in October 2021, 167,499/-, in October 2022 Rs 184,360/- ,in October 2023, 201,021/-, in January 2024, 171,015/- and February, 2024, 171,015/-. It is further submitted that learned court below has wrongly directed to the revisionist to pay Rs. 73,000/- per month to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date filing application only on the basis of salary of the revisionist of the October, 2023 without considering the income of revisionist in January, 2024.

10. It is next submitted that revisionist and his family members have taken house loan to meet out expensive treatment of his father who was suffering from Cancer and ultimately died. It is further submitted that the income received from the house situated in Saharanpur is received by her mother and he is not obtaining any amount from the said house in any manner. He has admitted in cross examination that in the house situated in Saharanpur, office of D.S.O. and F.C.I. are running. Revisionist used to visit foreign country but he gets only that salary which he gets in India, therefore, that amount cannot be added in his income.

11. He further submitted that the revisionist is ready to live with the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and provide them all their necessary expenses during life of them. Respondent no. 2 is well educated lady and had derives sufficient income from companies operated by her father in which she also works as director in Sudersan Seremix Private Limited. Learned court below has not considered the income of the revisionist and granted maintenance to the respondent no. 2 without considering the point raised by the revisionist in his pleadings and evidence, therefore, the finding regarding income of the revisionist can only be assailed by the revisionist and not by the respondent no. 2.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submitted that learned court below has wrongly interpreted the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Rejnish vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 and further wrongly divided the income of the revisionist in three parts, therefore, the impugned order dated 8.2.2024 is liable to be set aside.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that learned court below has calculated the income of the revisionist in lower side. Revisionist has admitted in his cross examination that bank loan is repaid by his brother and mother, therefore, the amount deducted from gross salary towards maintenance to the tune of Rs. 73,000/- was not sufficient. Learned court below has considered this issued in paragraph nos. 15 to 18 of the impugned order in elaborate manner. The brother of the revisionist, namely, Sambhav Jain is M.B.B.S. doctor and his mother derives Rs. 1,00,000/- from house allowances from the house situated in Saharanpur, therefore, family members of the revisionist are not dependent on her in any manner.

14. It was also admitted by the revisionist that he has to visit foreign countries in connection with affairs of the company and was deriving handsome amount during his visit and stay in foreign countries but only salaried income has been taken into consideration while awarding amount of maintenance, therefore, further deduction is required in salaried income of the revisionist while awarding the maintenance to the applicants in present revision.

15. Learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 20 of the judgement that opposite party has filed a document regarding amount of loan taken from H.D.F.C. Bank wherein it has been shown that opposite party is paying Rs. 54,279/- per month towards repayment of bank loan. Opposite party no. 2 is also repaying house loan and another loan. He lastly, submitted that revisionist had concealed his actual income and salary shown in paragraph no. 13 of his affidavit which is his basic salary and is not his net salary only to conceal his gross and net salary of previous years.

16. As per his information only Rs. 3,22,874/- has been paid in compliance of the impugned order and a huge sum of money is still to be paid by the revisionist as maintenance to the applicants as arrears as well as regular amount.

17. From perusal of the record it reveals that both the sides are highly educated people. In present revision respondent nos. 2 and 3 who are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist, have been awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 36,500/- each from the date of filing application. In I.T.R. of the revisionist of the assessment year 2016-17, total income of the revisionist is shown as Rs. 10,03,940/- which shows that monthly income of the revisionist was about Rs. 83,6616/- per month.

18. The revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance to the applicants from the date of filing application dated 19.10.2016 at the rate of Rs. 73,000/- per month. His income has been increased from year to year and according to his version his gross salary was Rs. 171,015/- in February, 2024 where as it is stated on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that he has shown his basic salary in regular chart given in memo of revision and at present monthly salary is more than Rs. 3 lakh but there is no documentary proof in support of his version.

19. Respondent no. 2 has levelled allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and torture against revisionist and his family menters which culminated into dislodging of respondent no. 2 from her matrimonial home on 23.5.2015 according to her version. She has also levelled some allegation of molestation and attempt of rape to her brother-in-law Sambhav Jain. The father of applicant lodged an F.I.R. against opposite party and his family members vide Case Crime No. 739 of 2015 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 517 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act wherein a compromise occurred on 15.8.2015 between the parties and she again came back to her matrimonial home, thereafter the demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Crore again started by husband and his family members and ultimately she was given beating by husband and in-laws. On 8.5.2016, she telephoned her father who came to the place of in-laws but this is also does with him and applicant no. 1 was thrown out from the matrimonial house and since then she is residing at her parental place.

20. Respondent no. 2 has filed fee receipt of daughter Arna Jain who studies in Delhi Public School Gautambudh Nagar and his monthly fee comes around Rs. 30,000/ to 35,000/- per month and during the period since filing of maintenance application.

21. Respondent no. 2 works as an Engineer in Accenture India Divya SEZ, Whitefield, Banglore. He has filed his account statement for the period between 1.4.2019 to 10.3.2020 which shows that EMI of loan which is regularly deducted to the tune of Rs. 43964/- He has tried to conceal the name of company where she works initially. He disclosed his name of company in cross examination. He has admitted that he had visited foreign countries during last nine years on many occasions but he cannot recollect as to how many times he visit foreign countries.

22. He stated that his marriage took place according to Jain rites and rituals. On perusal of impugned judgment and order it appears that learned court below has given finding on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the respective parties. Learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 18 of the impugned order in the month of October 2023, the total salary of the opposite party was Rs. 201,021/-.

23. This is settled law that finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court need not to be interfered in criminal revision of this Court and in present revision also finding is placed on evidence on record and no where it can be said to be perverse and need no interference in present revision, however, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order to the applicants which is at the rate of Rs. 36,500/- per month from the date of filing application dated 19.10.2016 requires some modification as this is quit natural that the salary drawn by the revisionist in the year 2023-2024 is not same as he were drawing in the year 2016. This fact has also been admitted that respondent no. 2 was also operating a company of her father and must have been deriving some income also which is said to be closed now.

24. Therefore, it is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to applicant No. 1 Neha Jain is reduced from Rs. 36,500/- per month to Rs. 30,000/- per month and amount of applicant no. 2 is reduced from Rs. 36,500/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of application to date of judgement and from the date of judgement dated 8.2.2024, respondent no. 2 will get Rs. 35,000/- per month and respondent no. 3 will get Rs. 30,000/- per month till she attaining the age of majority. Other conditions and directions issued by learned court below in the impugned judgement and order are not interfered with and revision is partly allowed with above modification.

25. The revision stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 SY

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA For the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist works as an Engineer in Accenture India Divya SEZ, Whitefield, Banglore. The marriage of revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 6.5.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals and a daughter, namely, Aarna was born out of wedlock of the spouse Sidharth Jain and Neha Jain. She was studying in class 5th in the year 2024 when present revision was filed. The original applicants filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for themselves wherein she claimed Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. He next submitted that according to the applicants father of applicant no. 1 spent huge some of money in the marriage which took place on 6.5.2011 but after the marriage the behavior of opposite party and his family members changed towards the applicant and they demanded additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 crores and started harassing her due to non fulfillment of additional demand dowry. She was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture at her matrimonial home by opposite party and his family members every now and then.

5. On 8.7.2016, opposite party and his family members engaged act of maar-peet and torture with the applicant no. 1. She called her father and when he reached at his place, the opposite party and his family members also misbehaved with him and had thrown her out from the house. The applicant no. 1 is residing at her parental house along with her minor son. She has not any independent source of earning.

6. It is next submitted that both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective claim before learned court below. Applicant no. 1 Neha Jain and her father Yogesh Jain appeared as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 before learned court below whereas the opposite party appeared as witness as D.W. 1 before learned court below in support of his stand taken in written statement. He next submitted that learned court below has estimated and observed in paragraph no. 21 in judgement and order that applicant no.1 is entitled to receive the maintenance from her husband according to standard of living which she would have been accustomed to live when she was residing with the revisionist at her matrimonial home in Banglour. Opposite party is living a luxurious life.

7. On perusal of academic document, it appears that daughter of applicant no. 1 is studying in D.P.S. school, Noida and applicant has stated that her father is bearing educational expenses of her daughter. Applicant no. 1 has also filed receipt of school fee paid for applicant no. 2, therefore, keeping in view social and economic status of the parties and after deducting the amount paid by opposite party towards installment of bank loan his net salaried income comes around Rs.108,642/- and when this amount is divided by three among the applicant no. 1 and 2 and opposite party, the share comes to Rs. 36,500/- therefore, learned court below has fixed Rs. 36,500/- as maintenance in favour of applicants from the date of filing application to from the date of judgement dated 19.10.2016.

8. Learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 20 of impugned judgement that opposite party is paying Rs. 92,379/- towards repayment of loan taken from the bank and this amount is liable to be subtracted from his gross salaried income Rs. 20,1021/-.

9. It is further submitted that methodology adopted by learned court below while fixing quantum of maintenance payable to the applicants, is not proper. As per information received from revisionist, the revisionist has already been paid Rs. 3,22,874/- towards maintenance to the applicant pursuant to the impugned judgement and order. Learned court below has taken into consideration the salaried income of the revisionist from the year 2016 to 2022 while fixing maintenance from October 2022 to the date of judgement and thereafter whereas revisionist has filed a chart of his net salaried income which reveals that in October, 2016 his net salaried income was Rs.75,046/-, in October 2017 Rs 88,489/-, in October 2018, Rs. 104,425/-, in October 2019, 108058/-, in October 2020, 120,976/-, in October 2021, 167,499/-, in October 2022 Rs 184,360/- ,in October 2023, 201,021/-, in January 2024, 171,015/- and February, 2024, 171,015/-. It is further submitted that learned court below has wrongly directed to the revisionist to pay Rs. 73,000/- per month to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the date filing application only on the basis of salary of the revisionist of the October, 2023 without considering the income of revisionist in January, 2024.

10. It is next submitted that revisionist and his family members have taken house loan to meet out expensive treatment of his father who was suffering from Cancer and ultimately died. It is further submitted that the income received from the house situated in Saharanpur is received by her mother and he is not obtaining any amount from the said house in any manner. He has admitted in cross examination that in the house situated in Saharanpur, office of D.S.O. and F.C.I. are running. Revisionist used to visit foreign country but he gets only that salary which he gets in India, therefore, that amount cannot be added in his income.

11. He further submitted that the revisionist is ready to live with the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and provide them all their necessary expenses during life of them. Respondent no. 2 is well educated lady and had derives sufficient income from companies operated by her father in which she also works as director in Sudersan Seremix Private Limited. Learned court below has not considered the income of the revisionist and granted maintenance to the respondent no. 2 without considering the point raised by the revisionist in his pleadings and evidence, therefore, the finding regarding income of the revisionist can only be assailed by the revisionist and not by the respondent no. 2.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submitted that learned court below has wrongly interpreted the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Rejnish vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 and further wrongly divided the income of the revisionist in three parts, therefore, the impugned order dated 8.2.2024 is liable to be set aside.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that learned court below has calculated the income of the revisionist in lower side. Revisionist has admitted in his cross examination that bank loan is repaid by his brother and mother, therefore, the amount deducted from gross salary towards maintenance to the tune of Rs. 73,000/- was not sufficient. Learned court below has considered this issued in paragraph nos. 15 to 18 of the impugned order in elaborate manner. The brother of the revisionist, namely, Sambhav Jain is M.B.B.S. doctor and his mother derives Rs. 1,00,000/- from house allowances from the house situated in Saharanpur, therefore, family members of the revisionist are not dependent on her in any manner.

14. It was also admitted by the revisionist that he has to visit foreign countries in connection with affairs of the company and was deriving handsome amount during his visit and stay in foreign countries but only salaried income has been taken into consideration while awarding amount of maintenance, therefore, further deduction is required in salaried income of the revisionist while awarding the maintenance to the applicants in present revision.

15. Learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 20 of the judgement that opposite party has filed a document regarding amount of loan taken from H.D.F.C. Bank wherein it has been shown that opposite party is paying Rs. 54,279/- per month towards repayment of bank loan. Opposite party no. 2 is also repaying house loan and another loan. He lastly, submitted that revisionist had concealed his actual income and salary shown in paragraph no. 13 of his affidavit which is his basic salary and is not his net salary only to conceal his gross and net salary of previous years.

16. As per his information only Rs. 3,22,874/- has been paid in compliance of the impugned order and a huge sum of money is still to be paid by the revisionist as maintenance to the applicants as arrears as well as regular amount.

17. From perusal of the record it reveals that both the sides are highly educated people. In present revision respondent nos. 2 and 3 who are wife and minor daughter of the revisionist, have been awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 36,500/- each from the date of filing application. In I.T.R. of the revisionist of the assessment year 2016-17, total income of the revisionist is shown as Rs. 10,03,940/- which shows that monthly income of the revisionist was about Rs. 83,6616/- per month.

18. The revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance to the applicants from the date of filing application dated 19.10.2016 at the rate of Rs. 73,000/- per month. His income has been increased from year to year and according to his version his gross salary was Rs. 171,015/- in February, 2024 where as it is stated on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that he has shown his basic salary in regular chart given in memo of revision and at present monthly salary is more than Rs. 3 lakh but there is no documentary proof in support of his version.

19. Respondent no. 2 has levelled allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and torture against revisionist and his family menters which culminated into dislodging of respondent no. 2 from her matrimonial home on 23.5.2015 according to her version. She has also levelled some allegation of molestation and attempt of rape to her brother-in-law Sambhav Jain. The father of applicant lodged an F.I.R. against opposite party and his family members vide Case Crime No. 739 of 2015 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 517 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act wherein a compromise occurred on 15.8.2015 between the parties and she again came back to her matrimonial home, thereafter the demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Crore again started by husband and his family members and ultimately she was given beating by husband and in-laws. On 8.5.2016, she telephoned her father who came to the place of in-laws but this is also does with him and applicant no. 1 was thrown out from the matrimonial house and since then she is residing at her parental place.

20. Respondent no. 2 has filed fee receipt of daughter Arna Jain who studies in Delhi Public School Gautambudh Nagar and his monthly fee comes around Rs. 30,000/ to 35,000/- per month and during the period since filing of maintenance application.

21. Respondent no. 2 works as an Engineer in Accenture India Divya SEZ, Whitefield, Banglore. He has filed his account statement for the period between 1.4.2019 to 10.3.2020 which shows that EMI of loan which is regularly deducted to the tune of Rs. 43964/- He has tried to conceal the name of company where she works initially. He disclosed his name of company in cross examination. He has admitted that he had visited foreign countries during last nine years on many occasions but he cannot recollect as to how many times he visit foreign countries.

22. He stated that his marriage took place according to Jain rites and rituals. On perusal of impugned judgment and order it appears that learned court below has given finding on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the respective parties. Learned court below has observed in paragraph no. 18 of the impugned order in the month of October 2023, the total salary of the opposite party was Rs. 201,021/-.

23. This is settled law that finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court need not to be interfered in criminal revision of this Court and in present revision also finding is placed on evidence on record and no where it can be said to be perverse and need no interference in present revision, however, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order to the applicants which is at the rate of Rs. 36,500/- per month from the date of filing application dated 19.10.2016 requires some modification as this is quit natural that the salary drawn by the revisionist in the year 2023-2024 is not same as he were drawing in the year 2016. This fact has also been admitted that respondent no. 2 was also operating a company of her father and must have been deriving some income also which is said to be closed now.

24. Therefore, it is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to applicant No. 1 Neha Jain is reduced from Rs. 36,500/- per month to Rs. 30,000/- per month and amount of applicant no. 2 is reduced from Rs. 36,500/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of application to date of judgement and from the date of judgement dated 8.2.2024, respondent no. 2 will get Rs. 35,000/- per month and respondent no. 3 will get Rs. 30,000/- per month till she attaining the age of majority. Other conditions and directions issued by learned court below in the impugned judgement and order are not interfered with and revision is partly allowed with above modification.

25. The revision stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 SY