JUDGMENT : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) The present criminal revision petitions have been filed against the common order dated 31.5.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2022 (Smt. Priti Singh v. Dhruvraj Singh Rathore & Anr.) and in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2022 (Dhruvraj Singh Rathore & Anr. v. Priti Singh) whereby the Appellate Court upheld the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 324/2016. 2. The criminal misc. case No. 324/2016 was filed by the petitioner-Priti Singh against her husband-Dhruvraj under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005) in which interim maintenance was claimed by petitioner-wife. 3. Learned Trial Court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 35,000/- as interim maintenance to his wife-Priti. 4. Both the parties, aggrieved by the impugned order, have preferred these criminal revision petitions, Mrs. Priti for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance and Mr. Dhruvraj to quash and set aside the impugned order. 5. This is the second round of litigation between the parties Earlier also petitioner-wife had, under the same provision of the Act filed an application for interim maintenance which was decided by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and A Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 13.6.2014 and passed an order granting interim maintenance of 130,000/- per month in favour of petitioner-wife. However, this order was also challenged and the same was upheld in the appeal vide order dated 30.9.2016. 6. Both the parties had preferred criminal revision petitions as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2004/2016 [Dhruvraj Singh Rahtore v. Smt. Preeti Singh] and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2163/2016 [Smt. Preeti Singh v. Dhruvraj Singh Rathore]. These revision petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2017 and the matter was remitted back to learned Trial Court for deciding the matter afresh permitting the parties to produce affidavits as well as pertinent documents. 7. In compliance of the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by this Court, the parties submitted their affidavits regarding their source of income, assets and liabilities. After hearing both the parties learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2021, ordered to grant Rs. 7. In compliance of the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by this Court, the parties submitted their affidavits regarding their source of income, assets and liabilities. After hearing both the parties learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2021, ordered to grant Rs. 35,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife, Priti Singh from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 15.5.2013. 8. This order was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2021. Hence, the present criminal revision petitions have been filed. 9. As per the brief facts of the case, the petitioner-Priti (hereinafter referred to as wife) filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 against her husband-Dhruvraj and mother-in-law Jyoti stating therein that the non-applicants were causing physical, mental and economic abuse to the petitioner-wife. 10. Allegedly, the respondent number 1, Dhruvraj (hereinafter referred to as the husband) was not giving any economic support to the petitioner-wife. It was submitted by the wife that the husband is highly qualified MBA graduate, who is working in a private company in Madhya Pradesh and is earning Rs. 75,000/- per month. It was also submitted that he belongs to a well-to-do family which has many sources of income including immovable properties, agricultural land etc. It was contended by the wife that she had no means to maintain herself and, therefore, she claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- per month as interim maintenance under the various heads. 11. On the other hand, husband submits that he is an unemployed person. Although, Earlier, he was working in a private company but at present he is unemployed. The husband further submits that the agricultural land, in which he has a share, is an un-irrigated land, hence the agriculture is totally based on rain. 12. As per the Income Tax return of the husband, his annual income is not more that Rs. 2,00,000/- where as the wife is working as a teacher in a school and is getting Rs. 28,200/- as salary per month. 13. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court allowed the application vide order dated 24.12.2021 and ordered the husband to pay Rs. 35,000/- per month as an interim maintenance in favour of his wife-Priti Singh. 14. 2,00,000/- where as the wife is working as a teacher in a school and is getting Rs. 28,200/- as salary per month. 13. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court allowed the application vide order dated 24.12.2021 and ordered the husband to pay Rs. 35,000/- per month as an interim maintenance in favour of his wife-Priti Singh. 14. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 933/2022 has been filed by the wife-Priti Singh for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 912/2022 has been filed by the husband-Dhruvraj to quash the impugned order. 15. Learned Counsel for the wife has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 [in Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020 (Arising court of SLP (Cri.) No. 9503/2018)] 16. Learned Counsel for the wife has submitted that the husband Dhruvraj is highly qualified person having degree of MBA and is earning a handsome salary. His father was a Jagirdar having number of properties in which husband also has a good share. 17. It was contended that the learned Trial Court has awarded only Rs. 35,000/- per month as an interim maintenance, which cannot be said to be adequate for proper maintenance of the wife. Learned Appellate Court has also upheld the order passed by learned Trial Court. 18. It is also been submitted by learned Counsel for the wife that annual income of husband is more that Rs. 80,00,000/- per year. Therefore, looking at the status and living standard of both the parties, as well as income of the husband, maintenance awarded by the Trial Court be ennanced. 19. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the husband has submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the wife is also a qualified woman employed in a school and getting about Rs. 30,000/- per month as a salary. It was also been submitted that the husband is an income tax payer and as per his Income Tax Return from the year 2019 to 2022, his annual salary was about Rs. 2,50,000/-. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court awarding Rs. 35,000/- is liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. 2,50,000/-. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court awarding Rs. 35,000/- is liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) has held that the objective of granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage. Grant of maintenance is not to be seen as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. It has also been held that even if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar to maintenance being awarded by the husband. Furthermore, merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. 22. It has also been held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife is sufficient to deny the claim of the maintenance. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra). Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore (S.B. Cri. Rev. Peti. No. 1345/2018) has held that mere fact that the wife is earning would not dis-entitle her from the maintenance. 23. In the present petition, the wife in her affidavit has deposed that she is working as a temporary school teacher in a private School and getting an amount of Rs. 37,700/- per month as salary. Under the head of 'General Monthly Expenses', the wife has given the aforesaid details of her earnings and expenses. Whereas, the husband in his affidavit has given the detail of his income and assets in which he has stated that his gross annual income for last three years has been Rs. 2,37,701/-, Rs. 2,45,500/- and Rs. 3,12,010/- as per last three Income Tax Returns. 24. Whereas, the husband in his affidavit has given the detail of his income and assets in which he has stated that his gross annual income for last three years has been Rs. 2,37,701/-, Rs. 2,45,500/- and Rs. 3,12,010/- as per last three Income Tax Returns. 24. Apart from this, the husband stated that he has 25 acres of agricultural land, that he is doing business of property dealing and that he also deals in sales of second hand cars along with the cultivation of agricultural land, which is totally dependent on rain. 25. From perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the wife is earning Rs. 37,000/- per month as salary. On the other hand, the husband has denied the fact that he is earning Rs. 75,000/- per month by doing a job in the private company. 26. It is an admitted fact that the husband is having about 25 acres of agricultural land that he is doing business of property dealing and is also dealer of sales of second hand cars. 27. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, financial position of the parties and daily needs of the wife, the order of awarding Rs. 35,000/- per month as an interim maintenance seems to be justified. This is an interim maintenance which will certainly be subject to the final order of the Trial Court. 28. This Court, therefore finds the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of the facts and material evidence placed on record before it. 29. At this stage, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month as an interim maintenance cannot be said to be an amount which is too meagre or an amount which could be termed as too much. Therefore, there is no merit in these criminal revision petitions and hence, these criminal revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 30. The criminal revision petitions are thus, dismissed. All the pending applications as well as stay application stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed separately in the connected file.