JUDGMENT : RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision is filed against the order dated 24.5.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 596 of 2019 (Smt. Nancy Saxena v. Arpit Saxena) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby application moved under Section 18A by the applicant (opposite party) has been partly allowed and the revisionist had been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance on monthly basis to opposite party Smt. Nancy Saxena from the date of filing of the application and during the pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court against her husband-revisionist with averments that marriage of the applicant and opposite party was solemnized on 9.5.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Rampur and no dowry was agreed between the parties in the marriage, however, after solemnizing marriage, opposite party and his family members started demanding dowry on pretext of purchasing a plot in Delhi and when the applicant expressed inability of her father to fulfill the demand of her husband and in-laws, they subjected her to mental and physical agony and opposite party used to make unnatural physical relation with the applicant against her will and she was ultimately turned out from her matrimonial home; she is presently residing at the place of her parents; he is not paying a single penny for her maintenance after keeping her out from his home therefore, it is prayed for providing interim maintenance from the date of filing of application, which was partly allowed on 24.5.2022 directing the revisionist to pay interim maintenance Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that impugned order passed by the family Court is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law as same was passed without considering the materials placed on record; findings recorded in the impugned order are based on misreading of facts and illegal presumption; the findings in the impugned order that as per the income tax return 2021-22 submitted by the husband, his annual income is Rs. 2,59,000/-, therefore, prima facie, he has sufficient income; it is apparent from the said income tax return 2021-22 that under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act the annual income of the husband from his business/medical shop is Rs. 79,000/- only and the arrears of salary Rs. 1,80,000/- received by him for the services rendered earlier in the private concern has been shown under Section 44ADA that is not his regular income but while passing the impugned order the family Court has illegally added both said income (mentioned under 44AD and under Section 44ADA) in his regular income. In the income tax return total income has been added for the purpose of computation of income tax in that particular assessment year; it is not the regular income of the husband. In the impugned order the family Court recorded the findings that the wife has been working as a teacher and receiving Rs. 13,000/- per month as her salary, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Court below to assess the income of the husband and compare it to the income of the wife before granting the interim maintenance but it has wholly illegally observed, “his income is sufficient” which is misconceived and against the settled proposition of law. It is apparent from the record that monthly income of the wife is admittedly more than the income of the husband and she is able to maintain herself, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. There are three cases including the present one filed by the wife against the husband which are pending before the District Court, Rampur, which is too far from the district Bhopal of Madhya Pradesh and on different dates the husband comes to Bhopal to Rampur for attending the cases by expending huge amount and on those dates he keeps his medical shop closed, means he does not earn a single penny on those days, which amounts to great harassment to him. 5. He lastly submitted that due to high-handedness and untoward conduct of wife, revisionist became mentally disturbed and unfit for job and ultimately he had to resign from service; he was working as Manager in Strategic Alliance Company and Management Pvt. Ltd. where he was working at the time of marriage and now he is running a small medical shop wherein he earns Rs. 8,500/- per month which is not sufficient for his own survival and bearing cost of a number of litigations filed against him at the instance of opposite party; the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Court below is too much and excessive and is disproportionate and he is not in a position to bear the same; the opposite part is well educated and a skilled lady, who herself is in a position to maintain her and such she is not entitled for interim maintenance, therefore present revision may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below may be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the application for interim maintenance moved by the applicant for maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the order passed by the Court below is in the form of an interim measure, which has been passed after considering the pleadings of the parties and documentary evidence on record, finding of fact should not be disturbed or interfered in revision as there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court below; the amount of interim maintenance is at lower side as applicant had sought Rs. 3500/- as interim maintenance in her application, in Misc. maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Court has awarded only Rs. 4000/- as interim maintenance and same is not liable to be interfered in revision filed by the opposite party before the Court below; it cannot be comprehend that the revisionist who admittedly runs medical retails shop is earning Rs. 8500/- per month only therefrom whereas this is admitted fact that he has undergone B.Pharma and some diploma also; the respondent is victim of domestic violence meted out to her by the revisionist; she was thrown out from her matrimonial home by her husband and she had to depend on her parents who cater to her needs and shelter whereas her father himself is at present jobless. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ankur Gupta v. State of U.P. 2021 (5) ADJ 640 , wherein this Court held that monetary relief granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which aggrieved person is accustomed merely because wife is capable of earning, is not sufficient ground to refuse claim of maintenance granted by the Court to the minor daughters of opposite party No. 2. In Kiran Tomar and others v. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Appeal No. 1865 of 2022 the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-10 has observed as under: “On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed to during the time when they were staying together. The two children are aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, and their needs have to be duly met.” 8. In present case, in income tax return 2021-22 filed by the revisionist, he has shown is annual income as Rs. 2,59,000/-, which has been taken into account by the Court below while awarding the interim maintenance to the applicant/opposite party; case of the revisionist is that opposite party in her statement of assets and earnings filed in the form of affidavit in compliance of direction of Hon'ble Apex Court has stated her monthly earning as Rs. 13,000/-; according to the revisionist, the applicant works as a teacher in Whitehall Public School, Rampur. 9. In income tax return and assessment year 2021-22 revisionist has shown his income under Section 44 AD Rs. 79,000/- and income under Section 44ADA as Rs. 1,80,000/-, which is total income in that assessment year is shown as Rs. 2,59,000/-. Under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act presumptive taxation scheme for a businessman is provided whereas under Section 44 ADA the presumptive income for a professional is provided; thus even if it is assumed that income Rs. 79,000/- and income under Section 44ADA as Rs. 1,80,000/-, which is total income in that assessment year is shown as Rs. 2,59,000/-. Under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act presumptive taxation scheme for a businessman is provided whereas under Section 44 ADA the presumptive income for a professional is provided; thus even if it is assumed that income Rs. 1,80,000/- was income earned from arrears of salary received by the revisionist from her previous employment and income earned from his medical shop is shown as Rs. 79,000/- yearly, same cannot be treated as actual annual income because Section itself covers the presumptive income for a small businessman, whose turnover is less than 20 crore prior to budget of 2020; the revisionist is well qualified pharmacist and it cannot be presumed on that basis that he earns only Rs. 8,500/- per month from the shop and it cannot be treated with finality at the stage of deciding an application for interim maintenance, which is an interim measure during pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; learned Court below has awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the opposite party after keeping into account the affidavit 13kha filed by the applicant in the form of assets and liability; she has also stated that her salary as teacher received from school is not her regular income. The revisionist has not filed any bank statement in support of his claim that he is a man of meager economic resources. 10. Claiming maintenance is one of the most formidable tools in the armoury of deserted wife to be able to support herself, and is thus crucial for the accomplishing goal of social justice. Courts have established caveats necessary to prevent its abuse. Certain guidelines have been setup by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . Said criteria include the parties' status, the applicant's (in this case the wife's) needs, and the respondent's income and property, the claimant's liabilities and financial responsibilities, the parties' age and employment status, the parties' residential arrangements, the parties' minor children's maintenance, and illness or disability etc. 11. In Rajnesh (supra) it is held that if the wife is earning some income, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband”. 11. In Rajnesh (supra) it is held that if the wife is earning some income, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband”. The duty of the Court is to look at the income she is earning in and of itself, and from that, determine whether or nor she is capable of sustaining herself in the manner and lifestyle to which she is accustomed to in the husband's house. Sustenance (as per the provisions of Section 125) doesn't mean and cannot be allowed to mean survival. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the filing of the application since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. 12. Thus, employment does not clarify the claimant wife and while deciding the question of award of interim maintenance the income of claimant wife, nature of her employment, economic resources of husband, genuine needs of wife, standard of life, she was accustomed to live when she had not live company of her husband all these facts are to be kept in account. 13. Therefore, in my considered opinion, reasonable amount Rs. 4,000/- awarded to opposite party as interim maintenance in her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist /husband is not unreasonable, excessive or unfair to the revisionist. Keeping in view the amount of maintenance awarded against the revisionist and attending facts and circumstances of the case no good ground appear to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below and revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 15. However, arrears of interim maintenance prior to passing of impugned order dated 24.5.2022 will be payable to the applicant/opposite party in the form of six equally monthly installments from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Court below provided the revisionist shall pay amount of interim maintenance on monthly basis to the opposite party. However, it is made clear that observations of this Court made therein are only for the purpose of deciding present revision and it will not be binding on Court below while deciding the maintenance application on merits.