JUDGMENT : JAY SENGUPTA, J. 1. This is an application challenging a judgment and order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 18th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in Criminal Motion No. 29 of 2017 (Criminal Motion 182/17) affirming the judgment and order dated 18.03.2017 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in Case No. M-140 of 2014 directing the petitioner to pay to the opposite party no. 2 interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code with effect from the date of order. 2. The present opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35000/- per month from the present petition and a litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-. She also filed an application for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month. According to the opposite party no. 2, the couple got married on 20.11.2011. After the wedding, she went to her matrimonial home in Noida with her stridhan articles. But, she was humiliated by the in-laws and tortured by them. She was even forced to starve. She was also subjected to perverted sexual acts by the petitioner with the aid of pornographic videos and was even physically assaulted and threatened by him. Finally on 07.02.2012, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. But, the in-laws withheld her stridhan articles. She claimed that the petitioner was an affluent engineer, working in a renowned company. His gross earnings were about Rs. 80,000/- per month. Yet, the petitioner and the in-laws were trying to pressurize her father to buy them a house in Gurgaon. 3. In his show cause, the petitioner denied the allegations levelled by the wife. He claimed that the couple co-habited only for about 2 months and 26 days. His application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending. He claimed that the opposite party no. 2 was employed with a finance company as an Assistant Manager and was earning a handsome salary, sufficient to maintain her-self. 4. Mr. Hironlal Majumdar, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner supported the show cause filed by the petitioner before the Learned Court below. He claimed that the opposite party no. 2 was employed with a finance company as an Assistant Manager and was earning a handsome salary, sufficient to maintain her-self. 4. Mr. Hironlal Majumdar, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner supported the show cause filed by the petitioner before the Learned Court below. He also relied on a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner purportedly showing deduction of TDS in respect of the opposite party no. 2 as an assessee. He contended that the wife was a qualified chartered accountant, earning well and hence, was not entitled to claim any maintenance allowance from the husband. He submitted that it was evident from the revisional order that the documents regarding the wife’s income were available with the records. He urged that the Learned Magistrate arrived at a patently erroneous finding. The Learned Advocate further submitted that a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed by the wife. 5. Mr. Ayan Bhattaharya, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 supported the order passed by the Learned Courts below. He referred to the serious allegations levelled by the wife against her husband and other in-laws. He also referred to paragraph 16 of the husband’s show cause where he had taken a philosophical view that poverty and/or penury were all but relative terms and submitted that yet he refused to disclose his actual income. The Learned Advocate further contended that whether the opposite party no. 2’s income, if at all, was sufficient for her maintenance or not was a matter of evidence, which can be decided only at the end of the proceedings. He relied on a compilation of decisions in support of his contentions. It consisted of (i) Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 ; (ii) Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 ; (iii) Sindhu P.A. vs. Viji P.K., 2008 12 RCR (Cri); (iv) Vinod Kumar Lodha vs. Reena Lodha (nee Jain), (2009) 2 Cal HN 422 and (v) Sumita Kachwaha & Ors vs. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 . 6. I heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates for the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and carefully went through the revisional application, two supplementary affidavits and copies of the decisions cited. 7. 6. I heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates for the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and carefully went through the revisional application, two supplementary affidavits and copies of the decisions cited. 7. Bereft of complicated details, the following factors appear to be the relevant considerations in deciding the present application:- (a) The marriage was not denied. (b) There were serious allegations made by the wife justifying her compulsion to stay away from the husband. (c) The husband was an engineer working in a renowned company. (d) The husband did not disclose his own income despite getting an opportunity to do so. (e) Some documents give an inkling that the wife might be working at some point, but no clear material was forthcoming about her actual income. (f) The impugned order was of interim maintenance and the main proceeding was still pending where evidence was to be led. 8. In Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a case under Section 125 of the Code the trial Court is to take a prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary to go into the matrimonial disputes in detail. This is indeed the guiding principle in dealing with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code. This is perhaps even more significant at the time of deciding an application for interim maintenance. 9. In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that - “8. In an illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain her-self in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain her-self in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain her-self” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.” Therefore, even if the wife earned something it had to be seen whether that was sufficient to maintain herself the way she would have ideally been maintained at her husband’s place. 10. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumita Kachwaha & Ors vs. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 too supports the contention that simply because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 11. If one views the relevant considerations as enumerated earlier in the light of the preceding decisions, it becomes indubitably clear that the petitioner cannot be denied interim maintenance. 12. Furthermore, in view of the materials thus far available as regards income and standard of living of the husband and considering the elevated state of the present cost of living, I do not find any worthwhile reason to interfere with the quantum of interim maintenance awarded in the present case. 13. I do not find any merit in the present revisional application and hence, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent down to the Learned Court below forthwith. 15. Urgent certified copies of the order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, upon completion of necessary formalities.