JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.06.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 371/2009, whereby the appeal of the appellant-respondent-wife filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') was allowed and the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 214/2008, by which the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 filed by respondent-wife was allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month was granted to her as interim maintenance from the date of order, was modified in the manner that the amount of interim maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month and the said amount was made payable from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 01.12.2008 instead of date of order. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.12.2008, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 before the Trial Court inter alia stating therein that her marriage with the petitioner-husband was solemnized on 30.01.2006 as per Hindu rites and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by her parents. After the marriage, for sometime the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner-husband and his family members towards the respondent-wife was good, but thereafter, they used to torture, harass and beat her for not bringing sufficient dowry and they used to make demand of dowry. The behaviour of her husband and family members was such cruel, which compelled her to live with her parents and since 14.10.2008, she is living with her parents. She was subjected to cruelty, harassment, beatings and humiliation for and in connection with demand of dowry. She has also lodged a report against her husband-petitioner and his family members in the Mahila Police Station, Ajmer for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC. The income of her husband-petitioner is Rs. She was subjected to cruelty, harassment, beatings and humiliation for and in connection with demand of dowry. She has also lodged a report against her husband-petitioner and his family members in the Mahila Police Station, Ajmer for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC. The income of her husband-petitioner is Rs. 75,000/- per month, hence she prayed for relief under Section 17- right to reside in a shared household; under Section 18-protection order; under Section 19-residence orders; under Section 20-monetary relief to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and under Section 22-compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Along with the said petition, an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 was also filed for grant of interim maintenance. 4. In reply to the aforesaid complaint/application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, the petitioner/husband admitted the marriage with the respondent, but refuted other allegations, i.e. demand of dowry and cruelty. It was contended that the respondent is an educated lady and earning a good salary by doing job in the call center. His monthly income is not Rs. 75,000/-. The respondent has herself left the house and is not entitled for any maintenance. 5. After considering rival submissions of the parties and the evidence adduced, learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.11.2009 allowed the application of the respondent-wife filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and ordered for payment of interim maintenance allowance in terms stated herein-above. On appeal by the respondent-wife, learned Appeal Court vide order dated 11.06.2010 allowed the appeal of the respondent-wife and modified the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- and also made that amount payable from the date of filing of the application instead of date of order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Aggrieved from the order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner-husband has preferred present revision petition, while reiterating the same contentions, which were raised before the Courts below and further contending that the impugned order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the Appellate Court is wholly illegal and contrary to law and facts and thus, liable to be quashed and set aside. Aggrieved from the order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner-husband has preferred present revision petition, while reiterating the same contentions, which were raised before the Courts below and further contending that the impugned order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the Appellate Court is wholly illegal and contrary to law and facts and thus, liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent-wife has lodged FIR bearing No. 184/2008 in Mahila Police Station, Ajmer for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the petitioner-husband and his family members, but the police after thorough investigation submitted FR No. 191/2008 and this fact goes to show that the entire allegations of beatings, harassment, taunting, domestic violence etc. made by the respondent-wife are wholly false, vague and fabricated one and there is no material or evidence to substantiate the same. So, the respondent-wife is not entitled for enhancement of interim maintenance and the learned Appellate Court has committed serious error and illegality in enhancing the amount of interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband further submitted that the respondent-wife has herself cheated and played fraud with the petitioner-husband and his family members and misused the money of the petitioner. She was having illicit relations with other persons. After realising her mistake and in order to repent, she has also written a letter to the petitioner-husband admitting her mistake and assured that now she would not tell lie nor play fraud with the petitioner and his family members. Copy of letter has also been placed on record. So, in the light of above letter, all allegations made by the respondent-wife fall to the ground and thus, the learned Appellate Court was not justified in enhancing the amount of interim maintenance and acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner. There is nothing on record to suggest that yearly income of the petitioner is Rs. 14,00,000/-, rather yearly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 5,00,000/-. Respondent-wife is an educated girl and she was in service prior to marriage and presently, she is fully competent to earn good salary by doing job, but despite competency, she is not doing any work and not earning. 14,00,000/-, rather yearly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 5,00,000/-. Respondent-wife is an educated girl and she was in service prior to marriage and presently, she is fully competent to earn good salary by doing job, but despite competency, she is not doing any work and not earning. In such circumstances, she is not entitled to interim maintenance, especially when she is competent to earn and looking to her conduct and behaviour as reflected in the letter, but this aspect was not at all considered by the learned Appellate Court and it enhanced the interim maintenance in a very casual manner without due application of mind to the facts and evidence available on record. So, impugned order passed by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no good, valid or cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Appellate Court, while interfering with the order passed by the learned Trial Court and enhancing interim maintenance and making it payable from the date of filing of the application instead of date of order. So, impugned order passed by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable is to be set aside. Learned Appellate Court had not considered the principles for determination of quantum for interim maintenance. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Appellate Court was not justified in enhancing the interim maintenance and acted illegally and arbitrarily and exceeded jurisdiction vested in it and enhancement is excessive and not in accordance with principles for determination of quantum of interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is true that normally the Court will grant only those relieves which have specifically been prayed by the petitioner/appellant, even then the Court has very wide discretion to grant relief not even prayed for by the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife supported the impugned order passed by learned Appellate Court and submitted that learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order and enhanced the interim maintenance and made it payable from the date of filing of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife supported the impugned order passed by learned Appellate Court and submitted that learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order and enhanced the interim maintenance and made it payable from the date of filing of the application. He has submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court and by way of present revision petition; he has prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 371/2009 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 214/2008 may kindly be restored and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to make payment of interim maintenance to the respondent-wife as per order dated 06.11.2009 passed by learned Trial Court. So, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has contended that the petitioner cannot go beyond his prayer made in the revision petition. So, granting of interim maintenance by the learned Trial Court is not disputed by the petitioner-husband and he has disputed only enhancement of the interim maintenance and also making it payable from the date of filing of the application. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has further contended that proceedings in criminal case is still pending in competent court and in revision petition filed by the respondent-wife, competent court has passed the order for reconsideration of the FR. So, the matter is still subjudiced. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also placed Income Tax record of the petitioner, which has been obtained by the respondent from Income Tax Department under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, for the purpose of earning capacity of the petitioner, which shows more than Rs. 12,00,000/- per year income of the petitioner in the assessment year 2009-10. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife further submitted that normally, the Court will not grant relief which has not been specifically prayed by the petitioner/appellant in his relief clause. It is true that the Court has wide discretion in appropriate case. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'bel Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 475 . 8. It is true that the Court has wide discretion in appropriate case. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'bel Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 475 . 8. The learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order has observed as under: " ;g rF; fookfnr ugha gS fd vihykFkhZ] izR;kFkhZ dh fookfgr /keZiRuh gSA izR;kFkhZ dh vksj ls bl rF; dks Hkh fookfnr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds v/khu izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k tkrk gS rks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23 ds v/khu U;k;ky; dks ;g vf/kdkj gS fd og ihfM+r efgyk dks varfje Hkj.kiks"k.k jkf'k fnyok ldrh gSA izR;kFkhZ }kjk vk{ksfir vkns'k dks pqukSrh nsdj vihy izLrqr u djus dk vFkZ ;g gS fd izR;kFkhZ ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd mldh iRuh vihykFkhZ mlls varfje Hkj.kiks"k.k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA orZeku vihy esa dsoy ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fnykbZ xbZ mDr jkf'k izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh jks'kuh esa leqfpr ,oa i;kZIr gSA izR;kFkhZ }kjk bl rF; dks Hkh fookfnr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd og orZeku esa dhu bafM;k fy0 uked dEiuh esa izkstsDV izcU/kd ds in ij dk;Zjr gSA izkFkZuk i= dh pj.k la[;k 11 esa Li"V :i ls mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd izR;kFkhZ dks viuh dEiuh ls :0 14]00]000@& okf"kZd osru ds :i esa izkIr gks jgs gS rFkk mlus xqM+xkao esa :0 8]000@& izfrekg ij ,d Q~ysV fdjk;s ij ys j[kk gS rFkk og vihykFkhZ dks Hkj.kiks"k.k jkf'k vnk djus esa l{ke gSA vius izfrmRrj ds pj.k la[;k 11 esa izR;kFkhZ us bl dFku dks xyr crk;k gS fd mls izfro"kZ osru ds :i esa :0 14]00]000@& izkIr gks jgs gSA izR;kFkhZ us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ us osru jkf'k dks c<+k p<+kdj crk;k gS fdUrq vius lEiw.kZ izfrmRrj esa izR;kFkhZ }kjk ;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS fd mls osru ds :i esa izfro"kZ fdruh jkf'k izkIr gks jgh gS vFkok mldh okf"kZd vk; D;k gSA izR;kFkhZ mDr dEiuh esa dk;Zjr gS ,slh lwjr esa mlds }kjk vklkuh ls Li"V fd;k tk ldrk Fkk fd dEiuh }kjk mls izfro"kZ vFkok izfrekg fdruk osru vnk fd;k tk jgk gSA izR;kFkhZ osru izek.k i= Hkh i=koyh ij is'k dj ldrk Fkk fdUrq mlds }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh lwjr esa vihykFkhZ ds bl dFku dks xyr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izR;kFkhZ ds osru dks c<+k p<+kdj crk;k x;k gSA izR;kFkhZ us vihykFkhZ ds bl dFku dks xyr ugha crk;k gS fd fookg ds iwoZ vihykFkhZ lsokjr Fkh rFkk mls osru ds :i esa izfrekg :0 25]000@& izkIr gks jgs FksA fookg ds le; vihykFkhZ dh ukSdjh fdl dkj.ko'k NqM+okbZ xbZ ;g iz'u izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq lqlaxr ,oa egRoiw.kZ ugha gSA i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ izek.k fo|eku ugha gS ftlls ;g tkfgj gks fd vius ifr izR;kFkhZ ls i`Fkd fuokl djus ds mijkUr vihykFkhZ lsokjr gS rFkk mls Lora= o i`Fkd :i ls bruh vk; vftZr gks jgh gS fd og viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k leqfpr :i ls dj ldsA mPp f'k{kk o izf'k{k.k izkIr efgyk gksus ls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ orZeku esa Hkh lsokjr gS rFkk mls fujUrj vk; vftZr gks jgh gSA ,slh lwjr esa ;g rks fuf'pr gS fd vihykFkhZ vius ifr izR;kFkhZ ls ,d leqfpr jkf'k izfrekg varfje Hkj.kiks"k.k ds :i esa izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA izR;kFkhZ dh vk; rFkk fo'ks"k :i ls bl rF; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s fd vihykFkhZ iwoZ esa lsokjr Fkh rFkk mls osru ds :i esa izfrekg :0 25]000@& izkIr gks jgs Fks] gekjs er esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk mls vUrfje Hkj.kiks"k.k jkf'k ds :i esa dsoy :0 4]000@& fnyk;k tkuk mfpr ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj u gh bl jkf'k dks vihykFkhZ ds Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, leqfpr o i;kZIr ekuk tk ldrk gSA gekjk ;g ekuuk gS fd vihykFkhZ dks varfje Hkj.kiks"k.k ds :i esa izfrekg :0 10]000@& izR;kFkhZ ls fnyok;k tkuk mfpr gSA gekjk ;g Hkh ekuuk gS fd mDr nj ls jkf'k ewy izkFkZuk i= dh izLrqrh frfFk fnukad 1-12-2008 ls fnyokbZ tkuh pkfg,A ,slh lwjr esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy mDr izdkj ls Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA " 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the view that the provision is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner-husband has not challenged the order passed by the Trial Court before the Appellate Court and by this revision petition he has only challenged order passed by the Appellate Court and also prayed for restoration of the order passed by the Trial Court. So, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that both the orders passed by both the Courts below be quashed and set aside is not acceptable, particularly, when the petitioner is ready to pay interim maintenance as per the order passed by the Trial Court. 11. The proceedings in criminal case are still pending before the competent court. So, only on the basis of final report given by the police no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent-wife. Both the Courts have passed the orders on interim maintenance and the parties are free to lead evidence before the Trial Court. 12. Determination of the fact that whether the respondent-wife Smt. Shipra Kaushik was having any relation with Mr. Kapil Rana or not, as mentioned in the letter annexed in this revision petition as Annexure-3, could have been made only by the learned Trial Court after recording evidence by both the parties and not at the stage of interim application for maintenance. Mere production of the letter in support of the arguments in revision petition that respondent-wife is having relation with another person is not sufficient for any Court to render complete and effective decision with regard to the disputed question in a proceeding for interim maintenance etc. under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Mere production of the letter in support of the arguments in revision petition that respondent-wife is having relation with another person is not sufficient for any Court to render complete and effective decision with regard to the disputed question in a proceeding for interim maintenance etc. under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Consequently, I hold that in the present case until the final decision of the main case pending before the learned Trial Court is rendered, it would only be correct to proceed on the basis that the respondent continues to be the wife of the petitioner, so as to entitle her to claim benefits and protection available under the provisions of the Act of 2005 and at this stage, without recording evidence, I am unable to consider the letter produced by the petitioner-husband. Both the Courts below have not considered the above letter in their orders. So, at this stage, I am not going on the merits of the letter produced by the petitioner-husband. He is also free to raise his objections before the Trial Court at appropriate stage. By the record of Income Tax produced by learned counsel for the respondent-wife, it is proved that the petitioner is earning more than Rs. 12,00,000/- per year and he is quite competent and has earning capacity. 13. In fixing quantum of maintenance, standard of living consistent with the status of the family must be taken into consideration. Neither income nor poverty is an answer to a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. It ensures socio-economic rights of a woman and protects her from vagrancy. The husband-petitioner can not say that he is unable to maintain his wife and children or wife is also educated or quite competent to earn. In case wife and children were to live together, even then the petitioner-husband would have to maintain the wife and children, therefore, contention of petitioner-husband that he is unable to earn sufficient amount is no defence. 14. In catena of decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that there is no necessity for a court to give reasons while describing that the maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application. Moreover, the court has to be sensitive to economic condition of the wife since she has been forced to live separately from the husband. Moreover, the court has to be sensitive to economic condition of the wife since she has been forced to live separately from the husband. So, in my considered view, even if learned Appellate Court has decided that the interim maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application, there is neither any illegality nor perversity in the order impugned. 15. I am strengthened in my view by the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respect in Shail Kumari Devi and anr v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, 2008 Cr LR (SC) 686 ; wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the point of right of wife to claim maintenance and laid down in the following terms: "...maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of 'special reasons' though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 16. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect." 16. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the respondent-wife is living separately from the petitioner/husband and at present having no source of income and admittedly it is responsibility of the petitioner-husband to look after and maintain the respondent-wife. In my considered view and in the conclusion, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner being husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the impugned orders passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as learned Trial Court, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 17. Consequently, the revision petition, having no merit, is, hereby, dismissed. 18. Stay Application No. 1226/2010 also stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******