Judgment S.G. Shah, J.—Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. RD Dave, Ld. Advocate and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, Ld. APP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the applicant and Mr. RD Dave, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. 3. The petitioner husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 21/2/2013 rendered by the Family Court, Junagadh, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 634/2011, whereby the applicant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- pm towards maintenance from the date of such application and to continue to make such payment. Specific date of application is not disclosed, however, the record shows that the respondent – wife has left her matrimonial home on 25/9/2011. 4. The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment on both the issues i.e. entitlement of the respondent – wife to get maintenance from him on the ground that practically wife has deserted the husband and that he is not at fault and secondly on quantum, stating that he is aged about 57 years and going to retire in the month of December 2014, therefore, even if his present income is more than Rs. 30,000/-, it would difficult for him to make regular payment of Rs. 12,000/- pm since his service is not pensionable and he would get only Rs. 1,500/- as monthly pension or regular monthly amount after retirement. 5. Though in such cases of maintenance, strict rule of evidence does not apply and though all such proceedings are being taken care of in summary manner as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, the fact remains that when parties are keen to prove certain facts and when there is a real triable issue, it would be appropriate for the Courts at all levels to examine relevant evidence in strict form and to apply the principles of law in strict manner, irrespective of general view in such cases that deserved wife, parents and children are certainly entitled to maintenance. Moreover, it is also settled legal position that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, care has to be taken regarding earning capacity, actual income and other legal liabilities, so far as provision for maintenance is concerned, of the husband or son in appropriate cases. Moreover, it is also settled legal position that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, care has to be taken regarding earning capacity, actual income and other legal liabilities, so far as provision for maintenance is concerned, of the husband or son in appropriate cases. It is also settled legal position that though wife is entitled to maintenance, such amount of maintenance should not result into luxury for her and it should not lead the wife towards judicial separation. Though such settled legal position has been reproduced in the impugned judgment in Para 17 of the impugned judgment, after discussing other aspects, while determining the issue on hand regarding maintainability and quantum of maintenance by the respondent – wife, the trial Court has in minimum words, determined and confirmed that the respondent – wife is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- pm. 6. The trial Court has framed three issues for its determination, which is enumerated in Para 8 of the judgment as under : I Whether applicant proves that opponent has deserted her without any sufficient cause and reason and without making arrangement for her maintenance? II Whether applicant proves that since he has no sufficient means to maintain herself and since opponent has sufficient means to pay amount of maintenance as claimed by the applicant? If yes, then what amount? III What order and judgment? 7. While answering such issue No. 1, the trial Court has in Para 16 stated that considering the evidence of both the sides, Court believes that opponent has deserted the applicant. To arrive at such conclusion, the trial Court has discussed the evidence in Paras 10 to 12 of the judgment; whereas in Para 13, the trial Court has simply listed as many as 8 citations referred by the opponent; whereas in Para 14, the trial Court has tried to summarize the outcome of all such citations in few words. To arrive at such conclusion, the trial Court has discussed the evidence in Paras 10 to 12 of the judgment; whereas in Para 13, the trial Court has simply listed as many as 8 citations referred by the opponent; whereas in Para 14, the trial Court has tried to summarize the outcome of all such citations in few words. In Para 15, the trial Court has stated that the facts of all cases are different and, therefore, he thought it proper not to discuss any such citation and so far as the judgment in the case of Tulsidas Madhavdas Sharma vs. Shantaben Tulsidas Sharma reported in 1991 Criminal Law Reporter [Gujarat] 286 is concerned, it is the opinion of the trial Court that in such case, allegation on desertion was taken care of by the Civil Court and such judgment of the Civil Court is not binding to the criminal Court. Moreover, facts of both the cases are different. 8. With due respect to the judicial power of the trial Court, it is to be noted that while discussing the evidence of both the sides in Paras 10 to 12, the trial Court has failed to refer and thereby appreciate and determine the effect of specific admission by the respondent – wife in his deposition before the trial Court, [Exh. 15 before the trial Court - Annexure-B page 28 of the Revision], wherein, in Para 13 during her cross-examination that she has deserted the matrimonial house because she does not want to take care or attend or support her mother-in-law, who is suffering from paralysis. It is also categorically admitted by her that in past, husband has written several letters to her family members complaining about her nature and that she had deserted her husband for three months as she had opted to be offended and adamant or obstinate over trifle matters and went to her parental house [Risamane]. She has also admitted that her husband is suffering from diabetic and unfortunately and surprisingly, it is her clear admission that she does not know about the operation of cataract by her husband. It is also her categorical admission before the trial Court that she is ready to stay with the husband, but on her own conditions. 9. She has also admitted that her husband is suffering from diabetic and unfortunately and surprisingly, it is her clear admission that she does not know about the operation of cataract by her husband. It is also her categorical admission before the trial Court that she is ready to stay with the husband, but on her own conditions. 9. The record shows that there is evidence in detail by both the sides so as to prove their case, both for desertion as well as for quantum of maintenance. The record also confirms that though the applicant husband’s salary at the time of evidence, was Rs. 34,000/- pm gross and Rs. 27,000/- net, his services are only upto December 2014 and thereafter, he will get only Rs. 1,500/- as monthly pension. Such evidence is in the form of salary slip and deposition by the Manager [HR], Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., where the applicant husband is serving as a Junior Officer. Therefore, though there is specific evidence regarding income of the present applicant husband, when such evidence also confirms that salary on the date of evidence would be available only till December 2014 and when the respondent has alleged about other investment and income so as to have handsome amount as a maintenance, there is no other cogent evidence so far as other investment, etc., are concerned, trial Court should have assigned reasons for considering the amount of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/-, instead the amount is determined in just one line. 10. There is also reference of some previous complaints, though there was no previous application of maintenance at any stage, the fact of such previous complaints are equally relevant to consider the reasons for matrimonial dispute between the parties, more particularly in such a case where both the parties are fighting on each issue teeth and nail. 11. It cannot be ignored that the attempt of compromise and thereby re-union of the parties has failed only because of the impugned order as respondent – wife is adamant to settle the issue though she has admitted that she wants to stay with her husband, even on her own conditions. 12. 11. It cannot be ignored that the attempt of compromise and thereby re-union of the parties has failed only because of the impugned order as respondent – wife is adamant to settle the issue though she has admitted that she wants to stay with her husband, even on her own conditions. 12. However, at present, in Criminal Revision Application, the Court has to initially determine the illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness in the impugned judgment only and, therefore, when prima-facie it is certain that the trial Court has dealt with the issue in summary manner without discussing entire evidence and without considering all relevant legal issues raised by both the parties, certainly there is some arbitrariness or at-least unnecessary haste in determining the issues by the impugned judgment. Considering the averments made in the petition, in written statement at Exh. 12 by the applicant – husband before the trial Court, copy of which is annexed at Annexure-C and written arguments at Exh. 33, copy of which is produced at Annexure-G and other material on record, prima-facie it transpires that the matter requires reconsideration by the Ld. Trial Judge on all such evidence and submissions before it. For the purpose, the impugned judgment and order requires to be set aside and matter needs to be remanded back to the Family Court, Junagadh for fresh determination on all such probable issues after scrutinizing the available evidence and submissions on record. 13. However, by impugned judgment and order, since the applicant has been ordered to pay amount of Rs. 12,000/- pm as maintenance to the respondent – wife and it seems that there is no order of interim maintenance, it would be appropriate to remand the matter with a direction to the applicant – husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand only] pm as interim maintenance from the date of original application in the year 2011 till final disposal of the main application. The amount, if any, paid till date, shall be adjusted towards such interim maintenance only. 14. It would be appropriate for the Family Court to consider the issues in light of all relevant pronouncements on the subject by the Hon’ble Apex Court and to decide the issues afresh without being influenced by the impugned judgment or by this judgment. The amount, if any, paid till date, shall be adjusted towards such interim maintenance only. 14. It would be appropriate for the Family Court to consider the issues in light of all relevant pronouncements on the subject by the Hon’ble Apex Court and to decide the issues afresh without being influenced by the impugned judgment or by this judgment. It would be open for the trial Court to permit both the parties to adduce additional evidence, if any, if litigants so desire. It cannot be ignored that Family Courts are being constituted to solve the matrimonial problems and not to dispose of pending cases only. Specific separate Court with specific jurisdiction is created with such pious duty towards society and, therefore, though the rule of law provides for summary trial or proceedings in such cases, practically it would be necessary at-least in some cases where litigants are keen to their evidence and submissions and whenever there is some fact or evidence, which otherwise requires proper consideration as in the present case, whereby practically the respondent – wife has admitted that she has deserted the husband on her own, to determine all such issues based on strict proof of evidence and not in summary manner. 15. I have avoided to discuss other evidence on record so as to avoid influence on the trial Court while deciding the issues afresh since this Revision Application is remanded back to the trial Court. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussion, the Revision Application be remanded to the Family Court, Junagadh, by directing the applicant – husband to continue to pay Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand only] pm, as interim maintenance, instead of Rs. 12,000/- pm, till disposal of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 634/2011 by the Family Court, Junagadh. Revision Application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.