ORDER : Petitioner is wife of respondent No.1 Rajesh Kumar and daughter-in-law of respondent No.2 Braham Dass. She has approached this Court against the order dated 7.9.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2017 titled Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. Seema Kumari, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”), whereby maintenance awarded in favour of the petitioner has been reduced to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.3,000/- per month. 2. Marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 10.2.2004. After marriage, their relations were strained and as per petitioner, she was forced to leave the house by the respondents by harassing her, whereupon she had made a complaint to Nagar Panchayat, Bhota and respondent No.1 Rajesh Kumar had given in writing before the Pradhan of Nagar Panchayat Bhota that he would neither beat his wife (petitioner) nor abuse her. In the year 2008 also, a written compromise was executed before the Gram Panchayat Bari on 10.11.2008, wherein respondent No.1 had agreed and undertake to bear maintenance of his wife, and to take care of his wife and children and other family members. 3. It is case of the petitioner that behavior of respondent No.1 did not improve which resulted in filing of complaint by the petitioner under the Act. The said complaint was adjudicated by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur vide order dated 18.4.2016 passed in DV Petition No. 29-1-2011, titled Seema Kumari Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another. In the said order, learned Magistrate had held that petitioner was entitled for protection order, relief of residence and maintenance, and accordingly, protection order was passed in favour of the petitioner prohibiting the respondents from committing any act of domestic violence in future and respondent No.1 was also directed to provide a separate room to the petitioner either in his home or in a rented accommodation if separate room was not available with him, and in case rented accommodation was to be provided, then rent thereof had to be paid by respondent No.1 and he was restrained from entering in such room without consent of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was further directed by the learned Magistrate to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of the order. 4. Respondent No.1 was further directed by the learned Magistrate to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of the order. 4. It is an admitted fact that in a separate petition maintenance of Rs.1800/- per month has been awarded in favour of son of the couple, payable by respondent No.1 (father of child). 5. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner is serving as a teacher in private institution i.e. DAV Public School Darkoti at Tauni Devi and she has admitted in her statement that she is getting a sum of Rs.2450/- per month. It is claim of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is running a garments shop at Mehre and is earning 25000-30000 per month, as deposed by her in her statement recorded on oath. In cross-examination, no question has been put to deny the said averment made by the petitioner. 6. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.1 is 40% physically handicapped. Though respondent No.1 has not questioned the claim of the petitioner that he is earning Rs.25,000/- per month from the business and landed property but, at the same time, petitioner has not placed on record any document to substantiate the same. Though respondent No.1 has stated that his family comes under BPL but he has also not placed on record any document in support of his claim. Though, it is also an admitted fact that respondent No.1 is 40% physically handicapped, but from the material on record and from the plea taken in the reply, it is apparent that disability of 40% is not coming in the way of respondent No.1 to act as a normal man as he can even drive a motor bike, as has been alleged in reply that petitioner had been pressurizing him to purchase a motor bike so that he may be able to drop her at the School. This plea has not only been taken in the reply but in cross-examination also similar suggestion was put to the petitioner. 7. This plea has not only been taken in the reply but in cross-examination also similar suggestion was put to the petitioner. 7. Learned Sessions Judge has considered that respondent No.1 is not doing any business and has taken his income on the basis of minimum wages calculated to the tune of Rs.6,300/- per month and taking into consideration the admitted salary of the petitioner, he has considered that by adding the amount of Rs.3,000/- she would be earning Rs.5,400/- which would be certainly excessive in comparison to husband (respondent No.1). The reason for that given by the learned Sessions Judge is that respondent No.1 has also to took after his parents and his child and as such he has to maintain, including himself, total 5 persons and, therefore, his minimum income was divided into five parts and it was calculated that each one would get a share of Rs.1260/- per month. 8. It is noticeable that it was never case of respondent No.1 that he has to maintain his parents rather his stand was that he is earning nothing and his parents are looking after him. Therefore deduction of an amount from his presumed per month income is a mistake committed by the learned Sessions Judge, by ignoring the material on record, and hence, even if income of respondent No.1 was to be considered as minimum wages, i.e. Rs.6,300/-, the same was to be divided in three equal parts i.e. Rs.2,100/- each per month i.e. amongst husband, wife and son. After paying Rs.1,000/- to his wife, he would be retaining Rs.5,300/- whereas by adding Rs.1,000/- in Rs.2,450/-, the petitioner would be getting Rs.3,450/- only. Even if calculation of learned Sessions Judge, with respect to income of respondent No.1 is taken to be correct, then also petitioner and respondent No.1 should be on equal footing and thus at least Rs.2100/- per month should be paid by respondent No.1 to the petitioner. So far as child is concerned, payment of Rs.1,800/- towards his maintenance by respondent No.1 is not to be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of maintenance payable by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, because to look after the child is a responsibility of both i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1. So far as child is concerned, payment of Rs.1,800/- towards his maintenance by respondent No.1 is not to be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of maintenance payable by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, because to look after the child is a responsibility of both i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1. Admittedly child is living with the petitioner and, therefore, it is legal as well as moral duty of respondent No.1 to pay some amount towards maintenance of his child to the petitioner. 9. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that instead of Rs.1,000/-, petitioner would have been entitled at least to Rs.2100/- per month from respondent No.1, in terms of order dated 18.4.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, H.P. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,100/- per month, in terms of order dated 18.4.2016, to the petitioner. It is made clear that determination of quantum of Rs.2,100/- per month by this Court does not mean that as on date also, petitioner’s maintenance would be restricted to Rs.2,100/- per month only. Amount of maintenance is liable to vary based on circumstances prevailing at the relevant point of time for determination of quantum of maintenance payable by respondent No.1 to the petitioner and child and petitioner and child shall have every right for taking appropriate steps for enhancing or getting just and fair quantum of maintenance amount but certainly by substantiating their claim in accordance with law. Petition is allowed in view of aforesaid terms. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.