Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2216 (ALL)

Abhijeet Alias Rahul v. State of U. P.

2023-09-26

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. Criminal Revision No.4105 of 2022 (Abhijit Alias Rahul vs. State of U.P. and Another) is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2022, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Bulandshahr in Maintenance Case No.930 of 2015 (Smt.Poonam Sharma vs. Abhijit Alias Rahul), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr, whereby the revisionist-husband has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance to opposite party No.2, who is wife of the revisionist from the date of filing of application to date of judgment and thereafter Rs.8,000/- per month. The arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month has been directed to be paid in four monthly installments. This is also directed that any sum received by the applicant earlier will be liable to be adjusted towards maintenance awarded in the judgment. 2. Criminal Revision No.2373 of 2023 is directed against the ex-parte judgement and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Case No.1503 of 2015 (Smt.Poonam vs. Abhijit @ Rahul and others), under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr, whereby the respondents who are husband and in-laws of Smt.Poonam Sharma were directed to provide a room in shared household of the respondents and they are also directed to refrain from causing any physical or mental pain to the applicant. The respondent No.1 has been directed to pay Rs.2500/- per month from the date of order towards meeting out the basic needs of the applicant related to food, clothing, medical and other expenses. The impugned order passed by learned Magistrate in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act was challenged by the opposite parties in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2019, (Abhijit @ Rahul and others vs. Smt.Poonam Sharma and another), which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide judgment and order dated 06.07.2019 and the ex-parte judgment passed by the learned Magistrate has been affirmed. Both the orders of courts below are challenged by the revisionists in present criminal appeal. Thus, the criminal Revision No.4105 of 2022 has been filed by the husband of the applicant against judgement and order of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court whereas in Criminal Revision No.2373 of 2022, judgment and orders of both the courts below are challenged by the respondents, including husband of the complainant. 3. Thus, the criminal Revision No.4105 of 2022 has been filed by the husband of the applicant against judgement and order of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court whereas in Criminal Revision No.2373 of 2022, judgment and orders of both the courts below are challenged by the respondents, including husband of the complainant. 3. As both the criminal revisions are related to same contesting parties and relates to similar matter, thus, these criminal revisions are being decided by this common judgment:- 4. The factual matrix of the case are that the marriage of the revisionist Abhijit @ Rahul and Smt.Poonam Sharma-respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19.06.2014. According to applicant, her father spent around Rs.10 lacs in the marriage but her husband and in-laws were nto satisfied with the gifts and cash given in the marriage. They started demanding a Santro Car and Rs.1 lac cash as additional dowry. The parents of the applicant tried to make them understand their inability to fulfill their demands but they did not oblige and persisted in making their demands. The husband of the applicant used to engage in anal intercourse with the applicant against the order of nature and the applicant raised a complaint to her in-laws regarding this offending act of her husband but they even countenanced the commissions of her husband. One day, she was speaking to her family members on telephone, suddenly her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Arushi confronted her, abused her and gave beating to her due to which she suffered injuries. She narrated the incident to her father when he visited her on 05.08.2015 and he took her alongwith him to his place. The applicant and his parents waited for sometime that good sense will prevail amonst her husband and inlaws. Her father even visited her in-laws on 24.10.2015 and tried to make reconciliation but the husband and in-laws of the applicant refuses to listen to him and keep the applicant with them. The applicant has been residing with her parents since then and has now become a burden over them. The opposite party Abhijit works in a private company namely, Dayal Group, Meerut and earns around Rs.40,000/- as monthly salary. The applicant is a home maker and she has not having any independent source of income. The applicant has been residing with her parents since then and has now become a burden over them. The opposite party Abhijit works in a private company namely, Dayal Group, Meerut and earns around Rs.40,000/- as monthly salary. The applicant is a home maker and she has not having any independent source of income. In proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the applicant further stated that she was subjected to anal intercourse by her husband in the night of 02.08.2015 forcefully, which caused much pain to her. When her father visited her husband and in-laws on 05.08.2015, her in-laws directed him to take her alongwith him otherwise same things will be done to her. In proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act summons were served on respondent, who includes husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant through District Protection Officer but even after holding of service as sufficient by court of learned Magistrate, they neither appeared nor filed any objection or written statement therein and the case proceeded ex-parte against them. Complainant examined himself in evidence as PW1, in which she supported complaint version and learned court below considered the evidence on record and observed that the complainant could not make any statement in her complaint or affidavit, which could prove the monthly income of opposite party No.1. Therefore, on the basis of meticulous consideration of material on record, the Court is of the opinion that the opposite paty No.1-the husband of the complainant be directed to pay Rs.2500/- as monthly payment to meet out the food, cloth, medical and other basic necessities of the applicant from the date of order i.e. 08.01.2019. The respondents were also directed to provide accommodation of one room to the applicant in shared household and they were directed to refrain from causing any physical or mental pain to the complainant. 5. The opposite parties filed a criminal appeal against judgdment and order passed by learned Magistrate before the court of Session. Learned Appellate Court considered the material placed on record and observed that even after service of summons, the appellant failed to appear before the court below. Learned court below held service of summon as sufficient on opposite party through registered post vide order dated 16.08.2018. Learned Appellate Court considered the material placed on record and observed that even after service of summons, the appellant failed to appear before the court below. Learned court below held service of summon as sufficient on opposite party through registered post vide order dated 16.08.2018. The notice under Domestic Violence Act may be served on respondents in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(c) of the Act as well as under Order 5 CPC or Chapter VI of Cr.P.C. The applicant failed to appear on many dates during the course of hearing of appeal and it appeared that they are not having any interest in proceeding with the criminal appeal. The amount of Rs.2500/- as monthly maintenance awarded to the applicant is proper. So far as the allegations of demand of dowry levelled against the appellants is concerned, this is a question of fact, which may be decided on merits of the case. The notice was also served upon the opposite parties and appellants through District Protection Officer. Learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite parties in proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 6. From perusal of record, it also appeared that respondent No.2 Smt.Poonam Sharma also lodged an FIR against her husband and parents-inlaw and sister-in-law Arushi (nand) on 15.11.2015, as Case Crime No.114 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 370, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, wherein she has made accusation of demand of dowry, subjecting her matrimonial cruelty, ill treatment and physical assault against her husband and in-laws in general and allegation of committing unnatural intercourse with her against her husband in particular on 02.08.2015. The matter was referred to Mediation Center vide order dated 09.12.2015 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.28945 of 2015 and till the next date of listing, arrest of the petitioners-accused persons was stayed. However, the interim order was vacated and writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 15.03.2016 passed by this Court. The police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against accused Abhijit @ Rahul, Shiv Kumar and Smt.Veenus, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, after conclusion of investigation and dropped the name of unmarried sister-in-law of the applicant as her naming in FIR was found false. No offence under Section 377 IPC was found to be made out against the accused Abhijit. No offence under Section 377 IPC was found to be made out against the accused Abhijit. The accused persons were enlarged on bail vide orders of trial court after filing of chargesheet. 7. In impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, the opposite party Abhijit alias Rahul appeared and filed written statement before the Court as 17-B/5 and admitted the factum of marriage with applicant. However, he denied the allegations of demand of dowry made against him and his family members. He further stated that the applicant used to hanging around telephone till mid night and used to visit her parental home after a gap of every two or three weeks and when he objected to this, she would create fuss and used to misbehave with him and his family member, getting annoyed of the protest made by her husband towards her conduct. She was even caught while speaking to some person in he late night on mobile phone and she did not show her mobile phone on being asked. He denied committing any unnatural sexual act with the applicant. She left her matrimonial home out of her own free-will, as a mark of protest of objection made by her husband and in-laws to the aforesaid conduct of the applicant. She lodged false FIR against her husband and in-laws of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry. He also stated that at present he is unemployed. The applicant has passed B.Ed Examination and she is also a Diploma holder of NTT and IGD, Bombay Art and she earns Rs.20,000/- per month by giving tuition. She is more educated than opposite party and is able to maintain herself. She is earning sufficiently while residing at her parental place against wishes of husband. She is not dependent on her parents. 8. Learned court below considered the statement of APW1 Smt.Poonam Sharma and statement of OPW1 Abhijit @ Rahul and OPW2 Shiv Kumar and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties held that this is admitted fact that the applicant is legally wedded wife of opposite party. She is residing at her parental place due to sufficient reason and reasonable cause. She has denied to make earning from private work and stated that she is homemaker. She has not learned stitching, weaving or embroidery and she is qualified lady and M.A., B.Ed passed out. She is residing at her parental place due to sufficient reason and reasonable cause. She has denied to make earning from private work and stated that she is homemaker. She has not learned stitching, weaving or embroidery and she is qualified lady and M.A., B.Ed passed out. She has also obtained NTT Diploma from IGD Bombay Art but she does not teach in any school. She has not even taught in any school prior to filing of the case. According to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, opposite party cannot shirk from his responsibility to maintain his wife, which is his legal and moral responsibility. This is the requirement of justice that the applicant should be made to lead her life in the manner and up to the standard which she was leading while living with her husband. Learned court below also cited certain judgments of this Court and other High Courts in support of his finding that merely due to the fact that the applicant is an educated lady, she cannot be divested to seek maintenance from her husband in absence of any independent source of income of her. Learned court below also observed that the applicant failed to adduce any cogent, factual or reliable evidence in support of the income of the opposite party. Although, she has stated that the opposite party works in Dayal Group, Meerut and earns Rs.40,000/- as monthly salary. The opposite party has stated in his objection that presently he is unemployed. He has stated in his crossexamination that he has done MBA in the year 2010 and he was engaged in a job in Dayal Fertilizers, Meerut at the time of marriage and his gross salary was Rs.26,178/- per month with Rs.1500/- annual increment. He has also stated that his father was employee in State Insurance Corporation and retired in the year 2019. Thus, the opposite party has admitted this fact that he has earned a professional degree of MBA and he is highly educated and is able to earn income and he is capable to maintain his wife, which is his legal and moral responsibility. Learned court below also considered the fact that in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act in Complaint Case No.1503 of 2015, learned Magistrate has also awarded Rs.2500/- monthly maintenance to the applicant, which is payable by opposite party. Learned court below also considered the fact that in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act in Complaint Case No.1503 of 2015, learned Magistrate has also awarded Rs.2500/- monthly maintenance to the applicant, which is payable by opposite party. After considering the principle of balancing between the litigating parties and totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Judge has awarded Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance from the date of filing of application to date of judgment and thereafter Rs.8000/- per month as monthly maintenance. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite party No.2 is more educated than the revisionist. She is capable of earning. An ex-parte decree of divorce has been awarded in favour of the revisionist but opposite party No.2 has filed an appeal before this Court against the decree of divorce. The revisionist is not earning at present and is not able to pay the amount of maintenance awarded in proceeding under Sections 18, 19, 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He has paid the amount awarded in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act to the complainant. However, for want of any regular income, the revisionist is not in a position to pay the amount awarded by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court failed to consider the fact that the income of the revisionist has not been proved in proceeding initiated by the applicant, he should not be saddled with providing maintenance to his wife, that too to the tune of Rs.8,000/- quantified in impugned judgment and order. The real bone of contention between the parties is that the applicant used to engage in long telephonic conversation with some person, which was objected by her husband and in-laws but she failed to mend her ways and instead left her matrimonial home on her own. The revisionist has also filed copies of demand draft as Annexure No.8 to the revision memo in support of his plea that he has been paying the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act. The allegations made against the revisionist are false and frivolous and have no leg to stand. He made his best efforts to get back the association of his wife but for the reason best known to her, she refused to live with him. The allegations made against the revisionist are false and frivolous and have no leg to stand. He made his best efforts to get back the association of his wife but for the reason best known to her, she refused to live with him. The impugned order dated 12.09.2022 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The monthly amount awarded in impugned judgement by family court is not proportionate to the income of the revisionist. Learned court below has overlooked the fact that the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2500/- to opposite party No.2 in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act and the same has been paid till August, 2022 and there is no arrears due upon the revisionist. As a matter of fact, the revisionist has never received any notice and summon in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act ever issued by learned Magistrate. Both the courts below have acted on the basis of presumption that summon has been served upon him. The proceeding were decided by learned Magistrate ex-parte without any knowledge of the revisionist and same is liable to be set aside and appropriate orders may be passed in present criminal revision. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate, learned appellate court as well as learned Session Judge after considering the material placed on record and there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders. 11. Here, it would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.:- 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 11. Here, it would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.:- 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means." 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.15 of a judgement passed in Kirtikant D.Vadodaria vs State Of Gujarat & Anr. 1996(4) SCC 489 held that "While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent distitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women. children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation." 13. children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation." 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Vimal vs K.Veeraswamy 1991(2) SCC 375 while discussing the basic purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure opined that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. 14. The proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.c. is of summary nature and the purpose or object of the same is to provide immediate relief to the applicant. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be moved by the wife on fulfillment of two conditions:- (a) the husband has sufficient means, (b) he neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. The Magistrate, in such cases, may direct the husband to pay such monthly sum of the money, as deemed fit taking into consideration the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. 15. Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj vs Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 held that "an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. In the present case, as the husband has not frankly disclosed to the Court, as he ought, his allowances which he admittedly gets, the presumption would be easily permissible against him." 16. From the aforesaid annunciation of law, it is obvious that the obligation of the husband is on higher pedestal when the question of wife and children arises. In the present case, as the husband has not frankly disclosed to the Court, as he ought, his allowances which he admittedly gets, the presumption would be easily permissible against him." 16. From the aforesaid annunciation of law, it is obvious that the obligation of the husband is on higher pedestal when the question of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. As per law, the wife is entitled to live a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband and that is where the status and stata of the husband becomes a prominent one, as long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she wold have lived in her matrimonial home. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, 2008(2) SCC 316 has held the grant of maintenance to wife is a measure of social justice. The court held as under:- "Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, 1978(4) SCC 70 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat 2005(3) SCC 636 . 18. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Durga Singh Lodhi Vs. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat 2005(3) SCC 636 . 18. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Durga Singh Lodhi Vs. Prembai and others, 1990 Cr.L.J. 2065 has held that mere absence of visible means or real estate will not entitle such a person to escape the liability to pay maintenance awarded under Section 125(1), as even at the stage of enforcement of the order under Section 125(1), an able bodied healthy person capable of earning, must be subjected to pay maintenance allowance. If, with this visible capacity to earn, he avoids payments, it has to be held that he has so done for no sufficient cause. If such a person avoids to discharge that obligations despite issuance of a distress warrant, he can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term specified in sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 19. In a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar." 20. In present case an admitted fact emerges on the basis of admission of parties during their evidence before the Family Court that the revisionist is an MBA qualified person and was working in a private company namely Dayal Fertilizers, Meerut at the time of marriage and at that time his salary was Rs.26,178/- accompanied with yearly increments. In present case an admitted fact emerges on the basis of admission of parties during their evidence before the Family Court that the revisionist is an MBA qualified person and was working in a private company namely Dayal Fertilizers, Meerut at the time of marriage and at that time his salary was Rs.26,178/- accompanied with yearly increments. His father retired in the year 2019, who was posted in State Insurance Corporation, however, the revisionist has stated that at present he is unemployed. The applicant could not rebut this statement and failed to produce any evidence regarding his income and earnings at the time when parties adduced their evidence before the court below. However, this is admitted position that he is capable of earning being an MBA qualified person, who was previously employed in a private company. On the other hand he failed to adduce any evidence regarding any independent income of the applicant despite the fact that she is also qualified woman and is capable of earning. 21. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shailja vs Khobbanna, AIR 2017 SC 1174 addressed the issue of quantum of maintenance of a professionally capable woman and laid down that such a woman too have a right to maintenance and that, the courts must take into consideration the difference between the capability of earning and the actual earning of the applicant-wife while deciding upon the quantum of maintenance. Merely because the applicant-wife is capable of earning is not sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the family court. 22. In Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha, Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment dated 28.10.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2310 of 2014 held that "Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance." 23. In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance." 23. In present case, the learned Family Court has not quantified the monthly income of the revisionist in absence of any evidence regarding his present employment but has come to the conclusion that he has sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submitted that the revisionist has contracted second marriage after decree of divorce, which is under challenge at the instant of opposite party No.2. Therefore, I find no substantial error in impugned order passed by learned Magistrate in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act as well as the impugned order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in present criminal revision. However, this fact is liable to be taken into consideration that the revisionist has filed copies of bank draft through which he has paid the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act to the opposite party No.2. Apart from Rs.2500/- per month in proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of application to date of judgment and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month with observation that any amount received by the applicant previously shall be liable to be adjusted in present order, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in absence of ascertainment of any fixed income of the husband but his ability to earn, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is liable to be reduced to some extent with a view to strike a balance of equities in respect of both the parties. 24. 24. The Criminal Revision No.2373 of 2023 filed against ex-parte judgement and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Case No.1503 of 2015 (Smt.Poonam vs. Abhijit @ Rahul and others), under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr as well as order dated 06.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2019 is hereby dismissed and impugned orders passed by courts below are affirmed. 25. The Criminal Revision No.4105 of 2022 is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance awarded from the date of application to date of judgement to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month is kept intact and affirmed but instead of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded from the date of judgment, is modified to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month, subject to other conditions imposed in impugned judgment by Family Court.