ORDER : C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This Criminal Revision No. 1401/2016 is directed against the order dated 5th May, 2016 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Khandwa, in MJC No. 47/2015, whereby monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 8,000 per month was awarded to each of the following three respondents namely Bharti (wife), Samkit (son) and Ku. Astha (daughter) under Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of the order. Criminal Revision No. 1782/2016 is also directed against aforesaid order; however, in Criminal Revision No. 1782/2016 filed on behalf of Bharti, Samkit and Astha, it has been prayed that the maintenance allowance be directed to be paid from the date of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not from the date of the order. Since both the aforesaid two criminal revisions are directed against same impugned order dated 5th May, 2016 they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts giving rise to aforesaid two criminal revisions may be summarized as hereunder; 3. Respondents in Criminal Revision No. 1401/2016 namely Bharti, Samkit and Astha (hereinafter referred to in this order as "wife", "son" and "daughter" respectively) filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for monthly allowance of maintenance against petitioner Jitendra (hereinafter referred to as "the husband"). It was not in dispute that husband Jitendra Kumar and wife Bharti had married by Hindu rites on 31.1.1996. Son Samkit and daughter Astha were born in the wedlock and on the date of application were 17 and 10 years old respectively. Samkit was congenitally physically challenged and his body could not develop. This has also not been disputed that the wife had lodged a criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband, his elder brother, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and nephew on 13.1.2014. The husband had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 19-A/2014 and was dismissed by order dated 18.2.2014 on the basis of compromise. Ultimately, the husband has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty. Ultimately, the husband has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty. It is also admitted position that the husband has acquired his L1.M. degree and owns a house in Maharishi Gautam Nagar, Khandwa; wherein, the wife, son and daughter are at present living. The husband also served as a Guest Lecturer for a while in Law College, Khandwa. Apart from aforesaid admitted facts, the case of the wife before the Trial Court was that the husband and his family had started to harass and persecute the wife for bringing in insufficient dowry. After the birth of physically challenged son Samkit, the instances of cruelty increased as they held wife Bharti responsible for giving birth to a physically challenged child. The chequered relationship continued during which several cruelties were inflicted by the husband on the wife. Ultimately, she lodged a report under Sections 498A, 323, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Police Station. The husband finally deserted the wife on 16.6.2014. Ever since, the wife has been living along with the children in the house of the husband at Maharishi Gautam Nagar, Khandwa. The husband has made no provision for the maintenance of his wife and children. She is being maintained by her parents. The wife is unable to maintain herself and her children. 4. In his reply the husband has refuted all allegations of demand for dowry and cruelty made against him and his family members. It has been submitted that in order to demonstrate his goodwill the husband had entered into an agreement with the wife to live together and had withdrawn the application for restitution of conjugal rights; however, the wife deployed subterfuge and later declined to withdraw the criminal case for dowry and harassment filed by her. The husband had taken the children to Indore on 9.4.2014 and had taken a house on rent for them. He had also got them admitted in Hari Kishan Public School; however, after, about a month and a half the wife returned to Ashapur on 4.6.2014 without informing the husband. She started to create pressure upon the husband to get the house situated at Maharishi Gautam Nagar, Khandwa transferred in her name. He had also got them admitted in Hari Kishan Public School; however, after, about a month and a half the wife returned to Ashapur on 4.6.2014 without informing the husband. She started to create pressure upon the husband to get the house situated at Maharishi Gautam Nagar, Khandwa transferred in her name. For aforesaid purposes she filed a false report in Tejaji Nagar Police Station in the night intervening 13th and 14th of June, 2014 and got the husband humiliated by her friend, who was a Trainee Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, she went along with her children on 15.6.2014 to her father's place and after that she broke open the lock of the house at Maharishi Gautam Nagar, Khandwa and has been living there since 18.6.2017. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not doing anything at present. He is living at Indore and is preparing for competitive examinations. The wife has experience of doing business of beauty products used by ladies and Sarees. She has given the upper storey of the house at Maharishi Gautam Nagar on rent. 5. After the trial, by elaborate judgment running into 27 pages, the family Court recorded findings to the effect that after entering into a love marriage with the wife, the husband subjected her to various acts of cruelty and desertion for a period of about 18 years, yet she did not lodge any report in the police and continued to bear everything stoically. Ultimately, she was constrained to lodge an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Other offences against the husband. In order to compel her to withdraw aforesaid criminal case, the husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and entered into an agreement with her in that case; however, he failed to make the wife withdraw the criminal case. After that, he deserted the wife and children in a hapless condition at Indore; therefore, they were constrained to come to Khandwa and live in the house of the petitioner at Maharishi Gautam Nagar. She never stopped the husband from visiting the house at Gautam Nagar; thus, it cannot be said that it was the wife who had deserted the husband. On the other hand, the husband left the wife and children in a helpless, condition and thereafter has not made any arrangement for their maintenance. She never stopped the husband from visiting the house at Gautam Nagar; thus, it cannot be said that it was the wife who had deserted the husband. On the other hand, the husband left the wife and children in a helpless, condition and thereafter has not made any arrangement for their maintenance. Thus, it is the husband, who had deserted the wife and who is refusing or neglecting to maintain them. The Trial Court also recorded the finding that though the husband has alleged that the wife had entered into the business of Sarees and she also used to take tuition for the children up to 5th standard; he has failed to prove the same; therefore, it cannot be said that the wife is capable of maintaining herself and her children. 6. In this criminal revision, no serious challenge has been mounted on behalf of the husband to the findings that he is neglecting to maintain the wife and children and the wife is unable to maintain herself and her children; however, learned Counsel for the husband has seriously assailed the findings of the Court to the effect that the husband approximately earns Rs. 50,000 per month; therefore, he must pay Rs. 24,000 per month (Rs. 8,000 for each of the respondent). 7. In this regard, the husband has submitted that at present, he is doing nothing and is preparing for competitive examinations. He has disputed the fact that he is an income tax payee; however, he has admitted that he has a pan card. He has also admitted that the Income Tax Officer had imposed a penalty in the sum of Rs. 5,82,120 upon him. He has stated that he had deposited Rs. 7,00,000 and 6,00,000 in his Bank account; therefore, the Income Tax Officer had imposed the penalty; however, he has clarified that aforesaid amount was received by him from his sisters by way of their contribution towards the amount for Court fees, which was to be paid in appeal for enhancement of compensation received by them for their property at Harsood, which was acquired by the State Government. 8. He had also admitted that he had filed income tax returns (Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7) and had received receipt (Ex. P-4) for the income tax paid. He has also admitted that he had declared himself to be a legal practitioner in Ex. 8. He had also admitted that he had filed income tax returns (Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7) and had received receipt (Ex. P-4) for the income tax paid. He has also admitted that he had declared himself to be a legal practitioner in Ex. P-5 but he has clarified that in January, 2014 he had surrendered his Sanad. He had also admitted that his father has received an award of compensation for acquisition of his land. He has also admitted that out of aforesaid amount, he had received his share. He had also admitted that he had filed an appeal in the land acquisition case in the High Court and had paid Court Fees of Rs. 3,29,702. He has also admitted that he had demanded compensation in the sum of Rs. 89,97,100 and that he would receive the amount with interest. He has also admitted that he had paid Court Fee in the sum of Rs. 71,000 on the appeal. He has filed another appeal in which he has paid Rs. 38,770 by way of Court fees. He had received Rs. 25,17,549 in the year 2004-2005 by way of his share in the partition of the house. He had received Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation under protest on 11.11.2000; however, he has denied that the has been coaching students and is earning Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 35,000 per month. 9. He has admitted that he pawns articles (Ex. P-43); however, he has admitted that his father was in the business of gold and silver ornaments. He has also admitted that he had spent Rs. 8,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000 for the construction of the house. In paragraph No. 31 of his cross-examination he has admitted that the diary article A-1 belonged to him and he had made entry Nos. P-46,47,48,49, and 50 therein and has also admitted that he had given loan through aforesaid entries after keeping gold and silver ornaments by way of security but it has been argued that aforesaid diary is old. 10. On the basis of aforesaid admissions made by the husband in his cross-examination, the Family Court had recorded findings to the effect that the husband is a man of means. He is a post graduate in law. He also had licence to practise law. He is a money lender and has experience of making and dealing in ornaments. 10. On the basis of aforesaid admissions made by the husband in his cross-examination, the Family Court had recorded findings to the effect that the husband is a man of means. He is a post graduate in law. He also had licence to practise law. He is a money lender and has experience of making and dealing in ornaments. The Trial Court had also observed that the petitioner is admittedly living in an expensive city like Indore for a period of over two years. He has not explained if he does not earn anything, how is he maintaining himself. The husband had received various sums by way of compensation, has paid large amounts by way of Court Fee on appeals and has also received his share after partition of ancestral house; therefore, the Court estimated husband's income to the tune of Rs. 50,000 per month. 11. Learned Counsel for the husband has assailed the aforesaid findings mainly on the ground that they are based upon estimation and surmises and has no real foundation. It has also been contended that the Trial Court has failed to take into account the fact that the wife and children, at present, are living in the house belonging to the husband and are; therefore, not required to spend anything by way of rent; therefore, the allowance of Rs. 24,000 per month is excessive. 12. Learned Counsel for the wife and children has opposed this criminal revision. 13. In the opinion of this Court, where the husband does not belong to a fixed income group, the wife is always under a handicap to collect tangible evidence with regard to the income of the husband. However, in the present case, the wife has succeeded in bringing enough material on record to indicate that the husband is concealing his real income. On the basis of the aforesaid admissions made by the husband, the Family Court was justified in estimating the income of the husband at Rs. 50,000 per month. At any rate, the husband is a physically capable and educated person. He has a physically challenged grown up son and he cannot escape his responsibility to maintain his wife and children. They obviously belong to affluent background. 14. 50,000 per month. At any rate, the husband is a physically capable and educated person. He has a physically challenged grown up son and he cannot escape his responsibility to maintain his wife and children. They obviously belong to affluent background. 14. However, the Court is of the view that the learned Principal Judge Family Court has failed to give due weight-age to the fact that at present, the wife and children are admittedly living in the house belonging to the husband and are therefore, not required to spend anything on housing; therefore, it would be appropriate to marginally reduce the monthly amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter. Obviously due to the physical affliction the son suffers from, it would be inappropriate to reduce his allowance. 15. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the husband has tried to unduly protract the proceedings before the Family Court. There is also no other justification for awarding maintenance from the date of the application especially in view of the fact that husband does not belong to a fixed income group. Thus, there is no ground to award the maintenance from the date of the application. 16. On the basis of foregoing conclusion, the Criminal Revision No. 1401/2016 filed by the husband is liable to be partly allowed and Criminal Revision No. 1782/2016 filed on behalf of the wife and children deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, it is directed that- (i) the monthly allowance payable to wife Bharti and daughter Astha shall be reduced from Rs. 8,000 per month each to Rs. 6,000 per month each. The monthly allowance for son Samkit is maintained at Rs. 8,000 per month. (ii) The Criminal Revision No. 1782/2016 filed on behalf of the wife and children, is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost of these criminal revisions.