JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. Both the Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2020 and Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2020 have been heard together and are being disposed of together as they arise of the common ‘Order’ dated 17.12.2019 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 229 of 2017 filed under section 125 Cr.P.C by the wife and son (i.e. petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 and opposite party no. 1 and 2 in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020) against the husband i.e. petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 and opposite party in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro has directed the husband to pay Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- total Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife (i.e. petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 and opposite party no. 1 and 2 in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020) with effect from 17.12.2019 i.e. the date of passing of the order. It has further been directed that the daughter shall be entitled to get the said maintenance amount till her marriage, and interim maintenance ordered by the Family Court on 16.03.2019 is effective till 16.12.2019. 2. The petitioners, who have filed Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020, are wife and minor daughter of the opposite party challenging the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro on the ground of quantum of maintenance amount and both the petitioners i.e. wife and daughter have claimed maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/- per month (Rs.20,000/- for the wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 and Rs.15,000/- for the daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2) instead of Rs.20,000/- per month as at the time of adjudication of the suit opposite party i.e. husband was earning more than Rs.2,15,567/- per month and at the time of filing of the suit the opposite party i.e. husband was drawing salary of Rs.1,33,613/- per month. 3. The case of the petitioners (Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020), in brief, is that the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Sushma Kumari was solemnized with the opposite party i.e. Pramod Kumar Roy on 11.03.2012 as per Hindu rites and custom and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with a daughter, who is petitioner no. 2 i.e. Ananya Roy. The petitioner no. Revision No. 22 of 2020), in brief, is that the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Sushma Kumari was solemnized with the opposite party i.e. Pramod Kumar Roy on 11.03.2012 as per Hindu rites and custom and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with a daughter, who is petitioner no. 2 i.e. Ananya Roy. The petitioner no. 1 i.e. wife was regularly been harassed physically and mentally by the opposite party i.e. husband for bringing less dowry, although her father had given a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh) at the time of her marriage. The opposite party i.e. husband used to lock her in the flat and assault her without any rhyme or reason. It is also stated that her Educational Certificates have also been taken away by the opposite party i.e. husband and kept secretly, which she could obtain after a hectic search of nearly 20 days. The petitioner no. 1 i.e. wife was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and stay at her sister’s house at Bengaluru and she was doing her job. The opposite party i.e. husband created ruckus at the workplace of the petitioner no. 1 with the sole intention that she may be terminated from the service and he finally succeeded in his ill design but on her request, the management allowed her to work from home whereupon she came to her parents’ home at Chas and was working from there. It is stated that thereafter, the opposite party i.e. husband tried to pacify the dispute and the petitioner i.e. wife, relying on the words of the opposite party, agreed to live with him to Bengaluru and to join the matrimonial home. However, there was no change in the attitude of the opposite party i.e. husband and he continued to harass and torture the petitioner. On 09.10.2017, the opposite party i.e. husband assaulted her and ousted her from the house. Thereafter, she complained to the Bellandur Police Station on 17.10.2017 and Bellandur P.S. Case No. 275 of 2017 was registered for the offence under section 498 A of the IPC which is still pending in a Court at Bengaluru. After that she came to her parents’ home at Chas, Bokaro and since then she along with her daughter is living there. It is stated that the mother of the opposite party has also kept all her jewellery. After that she came to her parents’ home at Chas, Bokaro and since then she along with her daughter is living there. It is stated that the mother of the opposite party has also kept all her jewellery. It has been further stated that she is incurring a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards her maintenance and Rs.15,000/- per month for maintenance and educational expenses of her minor daughter and she is unable to meet such huge expenses. It is also stated that she requested the petitioner for providing their maintenance but he paid no heed. It has also been brought on record by the petitioner that the opposite party was drawing a salary of Rs.1,33,613/- per month at the time of institution of the maintenance case before the Family Court, Bokaro and hence she has claimed maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/- per month (Rs.20,000/- for the wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 and Rs.15,000/- for the daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2). 4. After issuance of notice, the husband-opposite party appeared and refuted the claim of the petitioners and has even questioned on the character of the petitioner no. 1 (i.e. wife). He (i.e. the husband) has stated that he has purchased a flat in the joint name of wife and himself after taking loan from Housing Finance Limited and for which he is still paying the premium. He has also stated that petitioner no. 1 (i.e. wife) is a well-educated lady and is employed as a Senior H.R Executive at M/s British Orient Infotel Limited and drawing a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month. The petitioner no. 1 i.e. wife in her reply has stated that due to ill behaviour of the husband (i.e. opposite party) she has lost her job and at present she has no any means of livelihood. 5. The petitioner-Pramod Kumar Roy (i.e. the husband) has filed Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. 6. The case of the husband i.e. petitioner (Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020) is that marriage of the petitioner with opposite party no. 1 was solemnized on 11.03.2012. After marriage they have been blessed with a daughter namely Ananya Roy (opposite party no. 2). 6. The case of the husband i.e. petitioner (Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020) is that marriage of the petitioner with opposite party no. 1 was solemnized on 11.03.2012. After marriage they have been blessed with a daughter namely Ananya Roy (opposite party no. 2). The case of the petitioner inter alia is that the maintenance case is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the entire allegation are totally false. The further case of the petitioner is that the opposite party is his legally married wife and he never ill-treated her, rather he never shrugged away from the responsibility of a caring and dutiful husband and father. The petitioner was ousted from his company i.e. Intute India Product Development Center Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru since 22.09.2017 itself. It has further been stated that the real fact is that the opposite party no. 1 is an egoist, aggressive and quarrelsome lady and she always indulged in physical and mental torture to him. On 09.10.2017 she assaulted him, for which he sustained injury thereafter she fled away from the house and thereafter the petitioner made a complaint before the Bellanduru P.S and accordingly the same was registered as Bellanduru P.S. Case No. 278 of 2017 under section 323, 324, 504, 506 of the I.P.C., which is still pending before the learned court below. 7. It is stated that the petitioner had also purchased a flat at Bengaluru in the name of both (petitioner and opposite party no. 1) after taking housing loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The opposite party no. 1 is Post Graduate in HR from Symbiosis and had worked in three companies before marriage, she is a Senior HR Executive in M/s British Orient Infotel Ltd. and possesses one set of key of the flat. The opposite party no. 1 makes complaints one after another on being instigated by her mother only with a view to an ulterior motive. She is in a habit to stay outside of her flat without giving information to the petitioner in so many occasions. On 13.10.2017 the opposite party no. 1 on being instigated by her father had filed Bellandur P.S Case No. 275 of 2017 against the petitioner. It is stated that the amount given by the parents of the opposite party no. 1 has already been returned through two cheques dated 10.07.2013 and 09.07.2013. The opposite party no. On 13.10.2017 the opposite party no. 1 on being instigated by her father had filed Bellandur P.S Case No. 275 of 2017 against the petitioner. It is stated that the amount given by the parents of the opposite party no. 1 has already been returned through two cheques dated 10.07.2013 and 09.07.2013. The opposite party no. 1 is getting salary more than Rs.60,000/- per month from her job. It is stated that the petitioner tried his best for betterment of his wife and daughter, purchasing flat jointly in their name, take LIC policies and admitted his daughter in reputed school at Royal concord school, Bengaluru. He was also transferring Rs.10,000/- per month in the account of the opposite party no. 1. He never or ever subjected to cruelty in any manner to the opposite party no. 1 living separately without any rhyme and reason and deserted the petitioner. That the petitioner had also filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights as MC No. 3164/2017 dated 24.06.2017 as because the opposite party no. 1 does not want to live with the petitioner. It is further stated that the opposite party is not giving any importance to the petitioner and his family members and ultimately the opposite party has filed a case being Bellandur P.S. Case no. 275 of 2017 under section 498A of IPC against the petitioner leveling all sorts of false and fabricated allegations against the accused persons. 8. From perusal of the order passed by the court below, it transpires that the wife and daughter who are petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 and opposite party no. 1 and 2 in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020, have got examined two witnesses in support of her case who are as follows: (i) P.W-1 is Sharda Devi (mother of petitioner no. 1). (ii) P.W-2 is Sushma Kumari (petitioner no. 1). 9. The wife, who is petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 and opposite party no. 1 in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020, has got examined the following documents, which are as follows: (i) Exhibit-01 is Book List with price of daughter of petitioner given by New Viday Mandir School. (ii) Exhibit-02 is Tax Invoice No. 20 issued by New Vidya Mandir School on 24.03.18. (iii) Exhibit-02/01 is bill of supply no. 2320 dated 24.03.2018 issued by New Vidya Mandir School. (ii) Exhibit-02 is Tax Invoice No. 20 issued by New Vidya Mandir School on 24.03.18. (iii) Exhibit-02/01 is bill of supply no. 2320 dated 24.03.2018 issued by New Vidya Mandir School. (iv) Exhibit-02/02 is estimate/receipt of New Grand Shoe for purchasing shoe on 30.03.18. (v) Exhibit-02/03 is payment receipt of School Uniform purchased from Rup-Raj shop through ATM of Rs.1,900/- (vi) Exhibit-02/04 is bill of supply no. 3842 issued by M/s Rup-Raj Shop for purchase of clothes worth Rs.1,900/- (vii) Exhibit-2/5 is payment receipt made to DPS School through HDFC Bank. (viii) Exhibit-02/6 is Nursery admission receipt of Trisha for the Sessions 2018-2019 of DPS School, B.S. City, Bokaro. (ix) Exhibit-02/7 is payment receipt of DPS School issued through HDFC Bank. (x) Exhibit-02/8 is Fee receipts of DPS School dated 11.06.2018 of Trisha of Nursery-A. (xi) Exhibit-02/9 is Fee receipt of DPS School made through HDFC Bank. (xii) Exhibit-2/10 is Fee receipt for the month of August & September 2018 of Trisha paid to DPS School. 10. The wife has also got marked certain documents for identification which are as follows: (i) Document Marked-X for identification is downloaded copy of Form 26AS of O.P/Pramod Kumar Roy. (ii) Document Marked-X/1 for identification is photo copy of message sent through mobile no. 7899927488. 11. The husband i.e. petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 and opposite party in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 has got examined four witnesses in support of his case, who are as follows: (i) OPW-1 is Dharam Nath Roy (father of O.P.) (ii) OPW-2 is Mukesh Kumar (brother of O.P.) (iii) OPW-3 is Jagdish Thakur (iv) OPW-4 is Pramod Kumar Roy (O.P) 12. The husband i.e. petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 and opposite party in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 has got examined the following document in support of his case, which is as follows:- (i) Exhibit-A is Certified copy of order-sheet dated from 04.04.18 to 28.04.18 passed in G & WC No. 25/18 13. The husband has got marked various documents for his identification which are as follows: (i) Document Marked-Y for identification is a computer generated statement of account of D.N. Rai and M. Devi attested by S.D.K. Mahto, Notary Public. (ii) Document Marked Y-1 for identification is a certified copy of Cr. Misc. Case No. 819/17 filed in the court of CJM, Bokaro. (ii) Document Marked Y-1 for identification is a certified copy of Cr. Misc. Case No. 819/17 filed in the court of CJM, Bokaro. (iii) Document Marked-Y/2 for identification is certified copy of order sheet from 13.10.2017 to 14.10.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 819/17. (iv) Document Marked-Y/3 for identification is photo copy of bank transaction of ICICI Bank from dated 01.06.13 to 29.06.18. (v) Document Marked-Y/4 for identification is photo copy of bank transaction statement of State Bank of India from 01.07.13 to 15.07.13. (vi) Document Marked-Y/5 for identification is photo copy of loan agreement issued by LIC Housing Finance. (vii) Document Marked-Y/6 & Y/7, for identification is photo copy of show cause filed by O.P. in connection with Bellandur P.S. Case filed by petitioner Sushma Kumari. (viii) Document Marked-Y/8 for identification is certified copy of plaint of M.C. Case No. 3164/17. (ix) Document Marked-Y/9 is certified copy of plaint of G & W C Case No. 25/18. (x) Document Marked-Y/10 & Y/11 for identification are the photo copies of complaint filed in Chas Police Station and Chairman, Child Care Commission, Bengaluru. 14. Thereafter the learned court below after considering the case of both the sides has directed the husband-petitioner to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to his daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2, i.e. total amounting to Rs.20,000/- per month towards their maintenance allowances, which shall be effective from the date of this order i.e. from 17.12.2019. The opposite party shall pay the maintenance for the each month by the 10th day of each succeeding English calendar month. However, it was also made clear that the daughter/petitioner no. 2 is entitled to get the said maintenance till her marriage. 15. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro has held that the husband is earning Rs.2,15,567/- in the month of April, 2018 and the Tax Deduction is Rs.46,500/- which shows that the husband-opposite party has handsome salary, however, the court below has also observed that the husband has purchased a flat at Bengaluru in the joint name with his wife and for which he is paying premium for loan amount and thus the wife i.e. petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 and opposite party no. 1 in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 is co-owner of the flat although the opposite party is paying installment for loan amount. Revision No. 22 of 2020 and opposite party no. 1 in Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 is co-owner of the flat although the opposite party is paying installment for loan amount. 16. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 656/2020 and opposite parties in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020 and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020 and opposite parties in Cr. Revision No. 656/2020. 17. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioners (i.e. wife and daughter) in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020 and opposite parties in Cr. Revision No. 656/2020, has submitted that the order passed by the learned court below needs to be modified as the petitioners have been granted less maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month instead of Rs.35,000/- per month and as such they have filed this Cr. Revision No. 22/2020 against the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. It is submitted that the order dated 17.12.2019 is bad in law and fact as in order to decide the quantum of maintenance, the learned court below ought to have ascertained the actual income of the opposite party as revealed by the online copy of TDS Form- 26S for the month of April, 2018 was Rs.2,15,567/- (Rs. Two lakh Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Seen only). It is submitted that learned court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the opposite party as he failed to file a single piece of document revealing his actual income. Moreover, the court below also failed to issue direction to the opposite party to file a detailed affidavit of his assets, income and expenditure and the supporting documents as is required by the pronouncement of various High Courts as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the learned court below even upon considering the income of the opposite party to be Rs.2,15,567/- and tax deduction of Rs.46,500/- has allowed the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- which is much below 25% of the net salary of the opposite party. It has been observed by the Apex Court that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. It has been observed by the Apex Court that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. It is submitted that the learned court below while adjudicating the Original Maintenance Case has taken into consideration the loan taken by the opposite party for purchasing a flat in Bengaluru and the premium paid for the loan amount. However, the learned court below failed to consider that the petitioner is not having any accommodation for herself and she needs one as she cannot be compelled to continue residing with her father. Moreover, learned court below failed to observe that a substantial amount at initial stage was paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned court below ought to have taken into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner which are marked as exhibits. All the exhibits (Exhibit-01 to Exhibit-02/10) pertain to the expenditure incurred by the petitioner no. 1 in the process of admission of the petitioner no. 2 to a School in Bokaro, which is approximately Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and she has to incur a recurring cost of Rs.15,000/- towards her education, health, entertainment and other basic necessities. In the backdrop of the expenditure incurred on petitioner no. 2, the maintenance amount allowed by the learned court below will not suffice the requirement of the petitioner no. 2 as some expenditure are wholly recurring in nature. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020, has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 at para 10.9 and para 72.2.3 and (2017) 14 SCC 200 at para 15. It is submitted that petitioners (Cr. Revision No. 22/2020) should get 25% of the maintenance amount from the husband/opposite party (Cr. Revision No. 22/2020). 19. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner-husband in Cr. Revision No. 656/2020 and opposite parties in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the wife-O.P. No. 1 is not ready to live with him and even she has filed criminal case bearing Chas P.S. Case No. 279 of 2018 under section 498A, 406, 354, 363, 34 of the IPC is still pending. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the wife-O.P. No. 1 is not ready to live with him and even she has filed criminal case bearing Chas P.S. Case No. 279 of 2018 under section 498A, 406, 354, 363, 34 of the IPC is still pending. It is submitted that the petitioner every month is transferring an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the O.P. No. 1 i.e. wife. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 1 i.e. wife is a Post Graduate in HR from Symbiosis and had worked in three companies before marriage and serving as HR Executive at M/s British Orient Infotel Ltd and is getting handsome salary of more than Rs.60,000/-. However, the said fact has been suppressed by her and given false statement that she has no source of income and she is fully dependent upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned court below has not taken into consideration that the opposite party without any rhyme and reason has refused to live with the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party with full dignity, care and honour. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that several attempts were taken by the petitioner for settlement of the dispute, but she has refused to the request of the petitioner and denied to live with the petitioner without any reason. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that no maintenance can be granted to the wife if she refuses to live with the husband without any justifiable ground for living separate with the petitioner although the petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party with all dignity, care and honour. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner never ousted opposite party from her matrimonial house and she left her matrimonial home out of her own sweet will without any rhyme and reason. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the opposite party no. 1 is a working lady and getting handsome salary from her job. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the opposite party no. 1 is a working lady and getting handsome salary from her job. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is removed from his company i.e. Intute India Product Development Center Pvt. Ltd, Bengluru since 22.09.2017 itself. It is submitted that the learned court below without considering the material of the case held that the petitioner is having sufficient source of income, although there is no such evidence on record. It is submitted that time and again the opposite party no. 1 has filed a frivolous case against the petitioner on false allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned court below but the opposite party no. 1 does not want to reside with the petitioner and also filed case Guardians and Wards Act to take full responsibility of his daughter as also opposite party is so cruel that she neither allowed petitioner to meet in person nor to talk on phone. It is submitted that the petitioner has purchased the flat in the joint name of petitioner and opposite party no. 1. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 1 tried to implicate all the family members of the petitioner in false case and lodged PCR Case No. 1177/2018 under section 498A, 406, 354, 363, 34 of the IPC and the same was sent for registration of FIR and accordingly registered as Chas P.S. Case No. 279 of 2018 but during course of investigation the investigating officer submitted final report in favour of the petitioner stating the case and the same has been found untrue. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 1 also filed a Divorce Case being O.S. Case No. 458 of 2018 under section 13(1), (1a) of Hindu Marriage Act and hence this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 20. Now this Court has to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 21. It further appears that the petitioners (in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020) have filed supplementary affidavit on 25.07.2021 stating therein that petitioner no. 20. Now this Court has to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 21. It further appears that the petitioners (in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020) have filed supplementary affidavit on 25.07.2021 stating therein that petitioner no. 2 is aged about 7 and ½ years and studying in Class-II in DPS, Bokaro and all the expenses of the daughter including the expenses incurred of her education, fooding, cloth and medicine are borne by the petitioner no. 1- Sushma Kumari with the help of her father and Siblings and hence a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the maintenance of petitioner no. 2 by the court below is not justified. 22. It also transpires that the petitioner no. 1- i.e. wife (in Cr. Revision No. 22/2020) has filed her affidavit on asset and liabilities and has stated that she has passed B.A (Political Science) Honors and MBA (correspondence course) and she is not employed professionally. She has further stated that she is residing in her parental home which stands in the name of her mother at Chas, Bokaro and her general monthly expenses is around Rs.20,000/-. She has further stated that she has claimed one lump sum vide Complaint Case No. 981 of 2017 filed under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and she along with her daughter has been awarded Rs.20,000/- by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. She has also claimed that total arrear will be Rs.4,60,000/-. However, she admits that her husband has purchased one ‘Flat’ vide sale deed dated 08.08.2013 which is a three bed room flat bearing no. 104 located on the first floor of the Apartment building known as Saketh Paradise and claimed that even Health and LIC being paid by the petitioner. 23. It transpires that petitioners have not filed any affidavit and list of assets and liabilities. 24. So far as evidence of the parties are concerned, the petitioner no. 1 (Cr. Revision no. 22 of 2020) has got examined two witnesses in support of her case before the learned Family Court. 25. So far as oral evidence is concerned, it transpires from the order passed by the learned court below that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Sushma Kumari (Cr. Revision no. 1 (Cr. Revision no. 22 of 2020) has got examined two witnesses in support of her case before the learned Family Court. 25. So far as oral evidence is concerned, it transpires from the order passed by the learned court below that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Sushma Kumari (Cr. Revision no. 22/2020) and the opposite party i.e. Pramod Kumar Roy and in support of his case she has examined two witnesses and has filed various documents marked as Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2, Exhibit-2/1, Exhibit-2/2, Exhibit-2/3, Exhibit-2/4, Exhibit-2/5, Exhibit-2/6, Exhibit-2/7, Exhibit-2/8, Exhibit-2/9 and Exhibit-2/10 respectively and certain documents have been marked for identification as X and X/1. 26. It further transpires that the learned court below has discussed both P.W-1 and P.W-2 and has come to the conclusion that P.W-2 i.e. petitioner no. 1-Sushma Kumari (Cr. Revision no. 22/2020) has supported her case and has also supported the averments made in the petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. She has stated that after solemnization of marriage on 11.03.2012, opposite party no. 1 and opposite party were living like wife and husband and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter on 28.02.2014. However, she was tortured mentally and physically several times at Bengluru and several times the husband-opposite party had closed her along with her daughter in a flat after assaulting her and forcibly snatching phone from her. She has further stated that she had informed her parents through phone and even on 22.02.2017 her husband i.e. opposite party also complained to her mother and misbehaved with her mother also. Thereafter her husband again assaulted her on 25.05.2017 and for which she lodged a complaint in Bellandur Police Station vide C.P. No. 178 of 2017 and after assault she went to her sister’s house, who was also residing at Bengluru and from where she did work. However, her husband always visited at her work place and quarreled with her management, so her management had threatened her and thereafter she came to her parents’ house at Bokaro from where she did her work. 27. P.W-2 further stated that on 31.07.2017 her husband came to her parents’ house and promised not to repeat said mistake in future and thereafter she went to Bengluru but again she faced physical and mental torture. 27. P.W-2 further stated that on 31.07.2017 her husband came to her parents’ house and promised not to repeat said mistake in future and thereafter she went to Bengluru but again she faced physical and mental torture. It transpires that during evidence she has stated before the court below that she was compelled to institute Bellandur P.S. Case No. 275 of 2017 under section 498A IPC against her husband but her husband had also lodged a false and fabricated case against her vide Bellandur P.S. Case No. 278/2017 falsely alleging that his wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 has inflicted injury upon him by knife. She has stated that her husband is working in Cisco India Private Limited and is earning Rs.2,60,000/- per month. Further she has also stated that her mother in-law snatched her ornaments and her father had given Rs.10,00,000/- in cash, ornaments and other household articles at the time of marriage. She has further stated that she is living at her parents house due to assault of her husband and at present her daughter is studying in DPS School in class Nursery and at the time of admission she has incurred Rs.55,670/- as fees which was borne by her father and hence she claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and Rs.15,000/- per month for her daughter towards maintenance. 28. Therefore, marriage between the petitioner no. 1 (Cr. Revision No. 22/2020) and opposite party is admitted and the wife has also proved the salary of the opposite party as Rs.2,60,000/- per month and she has stated that she has been ousted by her husband for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 29. It transpires from the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 before the learned court below that the Exhibit-1 is book list of price of the New Vidya Mandir School whereas Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-2/1 relate to Tax Invoice and bill of supply issued by New Vidya Mandir School. Exhibit-2/2, Exhibit-2/3, Exhibit-2/4, Exhibit-2/5, Exhibit-2/6 relates to payment of receipt of certain expenditure and admission receipt issued by New Vidya Mandir School where the daughter of the petitioner no. 1 was studying. Exhibit-2/7 to Exhibit 2/10 are the payment receipt, fee receipt of DPS School issued through HDFC Bank. 30. Exhibit-2/2, Exhibit-2/3, Exhibit-2/4, Exhibit-2/5, Exhibit-2/6 relates to payment of receipt of certain expenditure and admission receipt issued by New Vidya Mandir School where the daughter of the petitioner no. 1 was studying. Exhibit-2/7 to Exhibit 2/10 are the payment receipt, fee receipt of DPS School issued through HDFC Bank. 30. It also transpires from the impugned order that P.W-2 i.e. wife during cross examination has stated that she did Master in Business Management from correspondence course and she worked in different companies at Bengluru but she does not want to live with her husband and so she has filed suit for divorce. She has also admitted that her husband has lodged a case of guardianship for her minor daughter. However, she admitted that she along with her husband had purchased a ‘Flat’ at Bengaluru on loan from LIC. She has also admitted that some of the Policies of LIC is in her name and premium is being paid by her husband. 31. Document marked for identification is downloaded copy of Form-26AS of opposite party-Pramod Kumar Roy which reveals that the opposite party had drawn the salary of Rs.2,15,567/- in the month of April, 2018, although the case was filed in the year 2017. Therefore, it is evident from the deposition of P.W-2 and the document marked-X for identification that the income of the opposite party was Rs.2,15,567/- in the month of April, 2018 i.e. even after filing of the maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C in the year 2017. The husband-opposite party was working in a company and drawing salary to the tune of Rs. Rs.2,15,567/- in the month of April, 2018 and even the tax deduction is Rs.46,500/-. 32. It further transpires that P.W-1 namely Sharda Devi (i.e. mother of the petitioner no. 1) has also supported the case of the P.W-2. 33. So far as evidence of the opposite party is concerned, it transpires from the impugned order passed by the learned court below that OPW-1 is the father of opposite party and he has supported the case of the opposite party. During examination inchief he i.e. OPW-1 has stated that opposite party has denied the allegation of the petitioner no. 1 for assaulting and torturing her and for demanding dowry from her. OPW-1 has proved certain documents marked as Y, Y/1 and Y/2 respectively for its identification. 34. During examination inchief he i.e. OPW-1 has stated that opposite party has denied the allegation of the petitioner no. 1 for assaulting and torturing her and for demanding dowry from her. OPW-1 has proved certain documents marked as Y, Y/1 and Y/2 respectively for its identification. 34. Document-Y is computer generated statement of account of D.N. Roy and M. Devi and Document-Y/1 is certified copy of Cr. Misc. Case No. 819/17 filed in the court of learned CJM, Bokaro and Document marked as Y/2 is the certified copy of the order sheet of said Cr. Misc. Petition from 13.10.2017 to 14.10.2017. However, surprisingly he i.e. OPW-1 (i.e. father-in-law) has stated that he is not aware as to whether his daughter in-law has lodged any case under section 498-A of the IPC against his son at Bengluru. Therefore, from the evidence of OPW-1 i.e. the father of the opposite party, it would appear that though he has tried to support the case of the opposite party in his evidence but Document-Y/1 and Document-Y/2 are not significant as they relate to order sheet of the miscellaneous case filed before the learned CJM, Bokaro and hence Document-Y/1 and Document-Y/2 are not relevant. Denial of institution of case under section 498-A IPC by the wife-petitioner no. 1 against her husband i.e. opposite party also signifies that her father in-law has some sympathy towards the wife i.e. petitioner no. 1. 35. It further transpires from the impugned order that OPW-2 (i.e. brother of the opposite party) has supported the case of the opposite party during his evidence but during cross-examination he has stated that he never went to Bengaluru and he is not aware as to whether his Bhabhi has lodged any case under section 498-A against his brother in Bengluru. 36. Therefore, from the evidence of OPW-2 it is clear that he is not acquainted with the incident taking place in the Bengaluru right from marriage till the year 2017 and he is also not aware as to whether petitioner no. 1 has instituted a case under section 498- A IPC against the brother of the OPW-2. Therefore, the evidence of OPW-2 is formal in nature. 37. From perusal of the finding of the learned court below, it transpires that though OPW-3 namely Jagdish Thakur has supported the case of the opposite party during his examination inchief. 1 has instituted a case under section 498- A IPC against the brother of the OPW-2. Therefore, the evidence of OPW-2 is formal in nature. 37. From perusal of the finding of the learned court below, it transpires that though OPW-3 namely Jagdish Thakur has supported the case of the opposite party during his examination inchief. However, during his cross examination he has admitted that the petitioner no. 1 is living at her parents’ home at Chira-chas along with her daughter for the last two years. He has also admitted that he has no personal knowledge of this case and he deposed in this case what the father of the opposite party-husband stated him. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of OPW-3, it is clear that the evidence of OPW-3 supports the case of the petitioner no. 1 Sushma Kumari. 38. So far as evidence of OPW-4 i.e. the opposite party is concerned, he has also admitted that his marriage with the petitioner no. 1 was duly solemnized on 11.03.2012, however, he has denied for taking any dowry. He has also stated that before marriage he was working in Intute India Product Development Center Pvt. Ltd., Bengluru but on 22.09.2017 he was terminated from his company and at present he is working at Free Lancing Job. He has also stated that he neither tortured his wife at Bengluru nor at Bokaro. He has further stated that his wife is an extravagant lady and she used to always demand money from him and when he objected then his wife threatened to take divorce from him. He also stated that his wife is a quarrelsome lady and on 09.10.2017 she gave a knife blow in his stomach and shoulder and even on the very next day i.e. on 10.10.2017, she fled away with his daughter. Thereafter, he (opposite party) lodged a complaint in Bellandur P.S being Bellandur P.S. Case No. 278/2017 under section 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC. He further stated that his wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she is living at her parents’ home but he i.e. opposite party used to send Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife. He further stated that his wife had instituted a false case of demand of dowry under section 498A IPC which is pending. He further stated that his wife i.e. petitioner no. 1 has voluntarily left her matrimonial home and she is living at her parents’ home but he i.e. opposite party used to send Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife. He further stated that his wife had instituted a false case of demand of dowry under section 498A IPC which is pending. However, he has filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights in a court at Bengaluru and has also filed one another case i.e. Guardianship Case in the Court at Bengaluru. However, he has asserted that he has purchased a flat at Bengaluru in the joint name of his wife and he himself after taking loan from LIC Housing Finance. He also asserted that his wife has income of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from her family property and he has never ousted his wife. Thus, from the evidence of OPW-4 (i.e. opposite party-husband) it is evident that there is dispute between the parties and the wife (i.e. petitioner no. 1) is living in the house of his parents and this event has been admitted by the OPW-3 during his cross-examination. 39. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, certain documents have been marked as Y/3, Y/4 and Y/5 respectively for its identification on behalf of the husband-opposite party (Cr. Revision No. 22/2020). 40. Document Y/3 is the photo copy of the bank transaction of ICICI Bank from 01.06.2013 to 29.03.2018, Document-Y/4 for identification is photo copy of bank transaction statement of State Bank of India from 01.07.2013 to 15.07.2013 and document marked Y/5 for identification is photo copy of loan agreement issued by LIC Housing Finance. The above documents reveal that the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party had purchased the flat at Bengaluru by virtue of loan agreement issued by the LIC Housing Finance and the agreement stands in the name of vendors on the one hand for selling the property whereas the petitioner no. 1-Sushma Kumari and opposite party i.e. Pramod Kumar Roy are the Purchasers on the other hand for executing sale deed on consideration amount of Rs.24,35,000/- for a three BHK Flat. The said sale deed executed on 08.08.2013. Therefore, it is also a fact that there is joint ownership of a three BHK Flat in the name of petitioner no. 1- Sushma Kumari and opposite party i.e. Pramod Kumar Roy (Cr. Revision No. 22/2020). 41. The said sale deed executed on 08.08.2013. Therefore, it is also a fact that there is joint ownership of a three BHK Flat in the name of petitioner no. 1- Sushma Kumari and opposite party i.e. Pramod Kumar Roy (Cr. Revision No. 22/2020). 41. From perusal of photo copy of TDS Form-26AS, it would appear that from 30th April 2018 to 31st December 2018 the salary of Rs.2,15,567/- was credited in the name of opposite party (Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020) and in the month of October, 2018 the salary credited is Rs.4,37,025 and Tax deduction has been shown in the range of Rs.46,005 to Rs.45,686/- excepting the month of October, 2018 when the Tax deduction Rs.1,14,781/- was done and total Tax deposit was Rs.4,81,221.00 and total salary credited is shown Rs.21,61,561.00 from 30th April, 2018 to December, 2018 which has been enclosed as Annexure-7 at page 103 of the of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 1. Although the petitioner no. 1 has also enclosed certain prescriptions of the Hospital and School Fees and Agreement which have already been discussed earlier and not relevant for the present but it also shows some expenditure that both petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 i.e. wife and daughter also need an urgent attention. 42. It further transpires that the learned court below has committed gross illegality by directing to pay maintenance amount from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. on 17.12.2019 instead of date of filing of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. 43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and Another, 2021 (2) SCC 324 has held at Para-77, 78, 79, 80, 112 and 113, as follows: “Para-77: The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Para-78: The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 , Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] Para-79: In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. Para-80: On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] Para-112: In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held: (SCC p. 196, para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” Para-113: It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 44. It has been held in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife by placing reliance upon the judgment reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129 . 45. It has been held in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife by placing reliance upon the judgment reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129 . 45. It has been held in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kachwaha, 2014 (16) SCC 715 at para 7, 8 and 10 as follows: “Para-7: Inability to maintain herself is the precondition 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 her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance. Para-8: 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 a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Para-10: The impugned order of the High Court dated 26.06.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2303/2007 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 46. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that Cr. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellant-wife as ordered by the Family Court and also pay the arrears of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife within the period of eight weeks.” 46. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2020 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 47. However, so far as Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 is concerned, this Court is of the view that an illegality has been committed by the learned court below by paying maintenance amount from the date of order i.e. 17.12.2019 instead of from the date of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. 48. It further transpires that so far as maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 1 (i.e. wife) is concerned, the same is correct and requires no interference. However, so far as maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2 namely Ananya Roy is concerned, the same requires to be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 49. Thus, the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Maintenance Case No. 229 of 2017 is modified to the extent that the husband-opposite party shall continue to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife i.e. petitioner no. 1(Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020). But he shall pay Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter namely Ananya Roy from the date of filing of application before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. 50. The amount of interim maintenance paid to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 in the light of the order dated 16.03.2019 till 16.12.2019 shall be adjusted, if paid by the husband-opposite party to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2. 51. The husband i.e. opposite party is further directed to pay the arrears of entire maintenance amount from the date of passing of the order and shall also continue to pay the maintenance of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 from the succeeding month i.e. August, 2023 and onwards, failing which the petitioners will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. 52. Thus, Cr. 1 and petitioner no. 2 from the succeeding month i.e. August, 2023 and onwards, failing which the petitioners will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. 52. Thus, Cr. Revision No. 22 of 2020 is allowed in part with the directions as mentioned above.