JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Jini, learned counsel representing the private respondent. 2. This petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, Papum Pare District, in connection with Maintenance Case No. 36/18 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), directing the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the respondent. 3. The corresponding Maintenance Case No. 36/18 was initiated by the respondent alleging inter-alia that she had been subjected to cruelty since 1992 by the petitioner, after her marriage to the petitioner solemnised as per ‘Galo’ customary rites. It is contended that the petitioner had indulged in extra-marital relationship with another woman, who even stayed in their matrimonial home, located at E-Sector at Naharlagun. Several kebang (local meetings) and family meetings were held, but the petitioner failed to mend his ways. It is also contended that the respondent endured the cruelty meted out to her, but when the situation became unbearable, she was impelled to move the Court for monthly maintenance. 4. It is submitted that the respondent had suffered physically due to the cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner/husband and she had been compelled to take contraceptive pills and at times the petitioner had urinated on her. Initially the respondent chose not to resort to any litigation, in order to save the reputation of her family which includes her two children, a daughter and a son, who have attained majority. It was also submitted that the respondent had to fend for herself as the petitioner had neglected to pay for her maintenance and had even denied paying for her medical bills. The petitioner is a regular Government Employee working under the Department of Secondary Education and at that point of time he had an additional income of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) over and above his monthly salary, whilst the respondent used to earn a basic pay of Rs. 26,453/- (Rupees Twenty-six thousand four hundred fifty-three) as a contractual employee. It was admitted by the respondent through her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner denied to maintain their daughter as soon as she (petitioner) got appointed as a Junior Teacher in July 2006. 5. 26,453/- (Rupees Twenty-six thousand four hundred fifty-three) as a contractual employee. It was admitted by the respondent through her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner denied to maintain their daughter as soon as she (petitioner) got appointed as a Junior Teacher in July 2006. 5. It was contended by the respondent that the petitioner had left his matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and had shifted base to his sister’s rented house at Itanagar. The respondent and her family members implored with him to return home, but the petitioner ignored their requests. It was also submitted that although the respondent resides in a Government Quarter allotted to the petitioner/husband along with her son, she may have to vacate the Government Quarter, if the petitioner gets transferred to some other place and it would not be possible for her to pay for a rented house. 6. The petitioner contested the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and filed a written statement. He denied the allegations of an extra marital affair with another woman. On the contrary he had alleged that the respondent had subjected him to cruelty from the threshold of their marriage. He had also denied the allegations of neglecting to maintain his son and had stressed that he had paid periodically for maintenance of his daughter and had claimed that he had been paying the electricity bills for the Government Quarter occupied by the respondent/wife. He denied that he treated his wife with cruelty. On the contrary, the petitioner had submitted that the respondent used to quarrel with his mother and used to belittle their standard of living. His wife was abusive in nature and she used to compare him with her former boyfriends. It had been contended that the respondent used to insist to lead an independent life and she was disinterested in her marital life with him. The respondent never wanted to be tied down to a family and she wanted to lead a Bohemian lifestyle. 7. The petitioner had submitted that his estranged wife was keen to lead an independent lifestyle and she used to roam around freely and whenever she had been dissuaded, quarrel ensued. The petitioner further submitted that he had seen a text message of one of his wife’s/respondent’s boyfriends on her phone. 7. The petitioner had submitted that his estranged wife was keen to lead an independent lifestyle and she used to roam around freely and whenever she had been dissuaded, quarrel ensued. The petitioner further submitted that he had seen a text message of one of his wife’s/respondent’s boyfriends on her phone. It had been stated that the respondent had even asked the petitioner to draft a divorce agreement and when he did, the respondent who was inebriated, tried to commit suicide. It had been alleged that the petitioner had suspicions that the respondent had nocturnal visitors. On 05.01.2017, the respondent assaulted him in a village meeting in presence of the members of the meeting. On 06.01.2017, the respondent showed him a picture of a man alleging that she was being followed by that man. 8. On 15.01.2017 the petitioner shifted to another room and severed all ties with the respondent. Finally in the month of February 2018 he shifted to his sister’s house at Itanagar to avoid cooking his own food and cleaning his clothes and also to buy peace. On 18.08.2018, the petitioner conveyed his decision to file an application for a decree of divorce but before he could file the application, the respondent filed a slew of cases of domestic violence and maintenance against him. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner is at present bearing all the expenses of maintenance of his son and daughter. It is also submitted that the respondent does not deserve maintenance as she is employed as a teacher. 10. The trial Court delineated the following points to decide the case: (i) Whether the applicant No. 1 and respondent were married to each other or they have at any point of time lived together as husband and wife? (ii) Whether the petitioner/applicant No. 1 who is self employed is entitled to maintenance from the respondent? (iii) Whether the applicant No. 2 and 3 who are major children are entitled to maintenance? (iv) Whether the respondent having sufficient means has neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner? 11. The respondent adduced the evidence of 5(five) witnesses including herself while the petitioner adduced the evidence of 3(three) witnesses including himself. Several documents were exhibited by both the parties. 12. The bone of contention in this case is that the respondent does not deserve maintenance granted to her by the trial Court. 11. The respondent adduced the evidence of 5(five) witnesses including herself while the petitioner adduced the evidence of 3(three) witnesses including himself. Several documents were exhibited by both the parties. 12. The bone of contention in this case is that the respondent does not deserve maintenance granted to her by the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has been maintaining his younger son ‘Y’ who is 25 years old. 13. Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stressed in his argument that the respondent stated through her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that she was earning a sum of Rs. 26,453/- (Rupees Twenty-six thousand four hundred fifty-three) as a Junior Teacher and the petitioner’s income was Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand). The corresponding case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The petitioner had to take shelter in his sister’s house due to the cruelty meted out to him by his wife/respondent. Moreover, his wife’s present salary is Rs. 34,855/- (Rupees Thirty-four thousand eight hundred fifty-five) and a copy of her salary slip is marked as Annexure-D. The petitioner has vehemently denied that the respondent is ailing seriously, although she had claimed that she is suffering from several medical ailments like migraine, insomnia, vertigo, Gynae problem, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problem. At present the petitioner is staying in a rented house and the respondent is staying in his Government Quarter, along with their son. The respondent procured the Residence order at the strength of a case filed under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act 2005, which was registered as Case No. 33/2018. The respondent’s speculation that in future she may have to vacate the Government Quarter is unfounded. The petitioner has prayed to allow his revision petition because he has burden to shoulder, to meet the educational expenses of his son and to repay loans for purchasing car and acquiring educational loan for his son. He has to pay at least Rs. 37,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven thousand) as EMI for the above mentioned loans, acquired by him. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order impugned by him. 14. Per contra, the respondent has stated that she was impelled to move the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as she was subjected to immense cruelty by the petitioner. 37,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven thousand) as EMI for the above mentioned loans, acquired by him. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order impugned by him. 14. Per contra, the respondent has stated that she was impelled to move the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as she was subjected to immense cruelty by the petitioner. It is submitted that a judicious order was passed by the trial Court, after considering her miseries. The respondent has submitted that her salary as a Junior Teacher in a Government School is very irregular and she is serving on a contractual basis. The order of interim maintenance in favour of their daughter ‘X’ was passed by the trial Court, which was later vacated by the order dated 18.03.2019 because her daughter ‘X’ started to reside with the petitioner. 15. Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the respondent emphasised through his argument that only after Court’s intervention, the petitioner has been maintaining his daughter. In the interregnum the respondent has been maintaining herself and her daughter. The petitioner has failed in his duty as a father. At present the petitioner’s salary is Rs. 93,877/- (Rupees Ninety-three thousand eight hundred seventy-seven) and he has been promoted to the post of Head Master. The respondent has stressed that she is at present suffering from several medical ailments like migraine, insomnia, vertigo, Gynae problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems, as a result of aggressive cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner destroyed her medical documents to destroy evidence. 16. Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decision: (i) Kusum Bhatia vs. Sagar Sethi, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16051/2017 decided on 16.09.2019 17. Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following decisions: (i) Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others (2021) 2 SCC 334 (ii) Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, Criminal Appeal No. 1627 of 2007, decided on 27.11.2007 (iii) Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kuchwaha, Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2014 decided on 28.10.2014 18. This Court’s order dated 01.04.2022 reflects that both the parties were directed to file their affidavits indicating their income and financial liabilities as per the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 334. Both the parties have filed their affidavits. This Court’s order dated 01.04.2022 reflects that both the parties were directed to file their affidavits indicating their income and financial liabilities as per the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 334. Both the parties have filed their affidavits. At present the petitioner is maintaining his grown up children ‘X’ and ‘Y’. At this juncture, it is apt to cull out the evidence on the basis of which the trial Court granted maintenance to the respondent. In revision, however appreciation of all the factual issues is not required. The evidence will be culled out in a filtered manner, shorn of unnecessary details. 19. The respondent’s evidence as PW-1 reiterates her pleadings. Her evidence depicts that the petitioner had subjected her to cruelty and finally deserted her. He also neglected to maintain her and her daughter. Her evidence also depicts that the petitioner had an illicit relationship with another woman named ‘M’. The respondent had exhibited her Medical documents as proof of her ailments and expenses incurred. The respondent also stated that at present her daughter stays with her father/petitioner. The respondents witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 are the sisters of the respondent and their evidence has substantiated the allegation that the respondent/PW-1 was subjected to intense cruelty by the petitioner. PW-4 and PW-5 are the brothers of the respondent and their evidence clearly depicts that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner. The evidences of the PW-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 depicts that the petitioner was suspicious by nature and he used to torture the respondent and used to subject her to immense cruelty. 20. The petitioner denied the allegations of neglecting to maintain his children. He stated in his evidence as DW-1 that he bore the expenses of his daughter’s education and other expenses as well. He denied extra marital affair with another woman (M), or other extra marital affairs. He submitted that ‘M’ was his student. DW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent had been suffering from diabetes and gallbladder problems and she underwent gallbladder and uterus operation at Shillong and he paid for her treatment. He admitted that he left his house in the month of December, 2017, and since then he had been staying separately. DW-2 is the petitioner’s brother and the DW-3 is the petitioner’s sister. Their evidence also reflects the same. He admitted that he left his house in the month of December, 2017, and since then he had been staying separately. DW-2 is the petitioner’s brother and the DW-3 is the petitioner’s sister. Their evidence also reflects the same. DW-1 had claimed through his evidence and pleadings that his wife was rude to his mother. He had to take refuge in his sister’s house to avoid cruelty meted out to him by his wife. 21. Evidence depicts charges and counter charges. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and his wife/respondent are spouses. Both the parties have admitted that the petitioner’s daughter has been staying with him since 2019. There is no denial that the children are maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner had admitted that he left his home in the month of December 2017. Thus desertion cannot be ruled out. He had been maintaining and still is maintaining his children but he has neglected to maintain his wife on the ground that his wife is employed as a teacher on contractual basis. He also did not maintain his daughter, till the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. It has emerged through the evidence and pleadings that his wife was fending for herself and their daughter, as the petitioner had deserted them. I agree with the decision of the trial Court that DW-1 has to pay for the maintenance of his wife. The trial Court has spelt out sound reasonings while deciding the case. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Bhatia vs. Sagar Sethi (Supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court declined to award any maintenance to the petitioner, as the petitioner/wife had income of her own. 23. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others (Supra) it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband.” 24. In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (Supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex court that: “7. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (Supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex court that: “7. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able to maintain herself.” 25. In Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kuchwaha (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex court has observed that: “10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself.” 26. I have also relied on the decisions referred to by both the parties. The respondent’s salary is irregular and she is employed as a Junior Teacher on contractual basis and she is earning a sum of Rs. 34,855/- (Rupees Thirty-four thousand eight hundred fifty-five). Annexure-6, indicates the salary of the respondent. It clearly depicts that the respondent’s salary is irregular. The petitioner, however, drew the attention of this Court to the Bank balance statement of the respondent. She has a balance Rs. 18,61,527.50/- (Rupees Eighteen lacs sixty-one thousand five hundred twenty-seven point five zero) in her bank account which is mentioned in the statement dated 10.05.2022. She has an account in the State Bank of India, Naharlagun Branch. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has sufficient balance in her Bank account to meet her personal expenses, even when her salary is not credited to her account in the end of the month. Some medical documents were also submitted along with the affidavit marked as Exhibit-A and B series, which clearly depicts that the respondent has health issues. Some medical documents were also submitted along with the affidavit marked as Exhibit-A and B series, which clearly depicts that the respondent has health issues. These documents were submitted as documentary evidence in the corresponding maintenance Case No. 36/2018. PW-2 has also substantiated the evidence that her father (petitioner) never paid for her mother’s (respondent’s) medical bills. Her evidence also substantiates that her mother has health issues. It is admitted by both the parties that the petitioner is taking care of his children at present. The petitioner is not willing to pay the maintenance for the sole reason that the respondent is employed and he has burden to his shoulder. The petitioner’s Bank statement is marked as annexure-9. He has submitted his Bank statement along with the affidavit indicating his income and financial liabilities. It is clear from his Bank statement of the State Bank of India that he had a Bank balance of Rs. 45,224.71/- (Rupees Forty-five thousand two hundred twenty-four point seven one) as on 02.06.2019 and Rs. 2,39,365/- (Rupees Two lacs thirty-nine thousand three hundred sixty-five) as on 12.04.2022. 28. I have compared the Bank statements of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is earning a good amount as salary and the respondent’s salary is irregular. The petitioner has to bear the expenses of his own family including his children, whereas, the respondent has to meet her personal expenses only. She is occupying the Government Quarter allotted to her husband. It was correctly held that the petitioner had neglected to maintain his wife and daughter. However, at present the petitioner is maintaining his children, except his wife. Since December 2017 upto February 2019, he did not meet his daughter nor paid for her maintenance. Since 2017 and after the impugned order dated 21.12.2020, that was passed in connection with Maintenance Case No. 36/2018, the petitioner has not been paying for maintenance of his wife. 29. It is no more res integra that as per provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the wife has to maintain her standard of living, which is neither luxurious nor penurious but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the respondent for such moderate living can be fairly determined. The income of the respondent is to be taken into account together with the income of her husband and his commitment. The needs and requirements of the respondent for such moderate living can be fairly determined. The income of the respondent is to be taken into account together with the income of her husband and his commitment. At this stage, it is also admitted that the petitioner’s net income is Rs. 93,877/- (Rupees Ninety-three thousand eight hundred seventy-seven). The affidavit submitted by both the parties, clearly depicts that that the monthly net income of the petitioner is Rs. 1,22,195/- (One lac twenty-two thousand one hundred ninety-five). The petitioner has to meet monthly expenditures which tantamounts to Rs. 1,12,395/- (Rupees One lac Twelve thousand three hundred ninety-five). It is also submitted that the Bank balance of the respondent dated 10.05.2022, was not submitted with the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which clearly depicts that that the respondent acted in a subterfuged manner. However, the fact remains that the respondent is suffering from several ailments and requires medical treatment, which cannot be ignored and also the fact that the respondent is employed on contractual basis also cannot be ignored. The respondent is not entitled to the retirement benefits whereas, the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits. 30. It has surfaced through the affidavits of assets and, liabilities and also through the evidence that the petitioner has to pay EMI’s for his car loan and educational loan of his son. I have also considered the fact that the petitioner has to pay fees for his daughter’s education in the field of music. I have also considered the fact that the petitioner neglected to maintain his daughter from 2017 to 2019, and that he has failed to maintain his wife from the month of December 2017. After considering the submissions at the Bar, it is held that the order of maintenance will not create a hole in the petitioner’s pocket. The impugned order of maintenance is not the order which can be considered extravagant, oppressive and unbearable for the petitioner nor can it be considered as a bonanza on account of the respondent. The trial Court’s decision is in order. 31. This petition is devoid of merits. Therefore, this petition is hereby rejected upholding the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. 32. Send back the LCR.