JUDGMENT : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. 1. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the rival parties at admission stage. 2. The Applicants, who are the Petitioners before the learned Family Court No. 2 at Nagpur in Petition No. E-542/2016 have challenged the Judgment and order dated 20/1/2020 passed therein, in the instant Revision Application. Under the impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court No. 2, Nagpur (for short, ‘the learned Family Court’), though granted maintenance to the present Applicant No. 2/daughter at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month from the date of order, but rejected the claim for maintenance in respect of the present Applicant No. 1/wife. Thus, the Applicant No. 1/wife is before this Court for rejection of her maintenance and for granting a paltry amount to her daughter. 3. The facts leading to the present Revision Application are as under: The Applicants/Petitioners filed the aforesaid Petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not disputed that the Applicant No. 1 and Non-applicant are legally wedded wife and husband and the Applicant No. 2 has begotten out of their wedlock. The main allegations made by the Applicant No. 1 in her Petition before the learned Family Court are that after marriage the Non-applicant/husband and his family members pressurized her to meet illegal monetary demands by asking her to claim her share in her father’s property and they also pressurized her to become co-borrower in the housing loan for the flat at Koradi Road. She alleged that the previous wife of the Non-applicant was also harassed by them on account of demand of money, who subsequently died on 5/9/2013 during her pregnancy. She made contention that her in-laws did not provide money for vaccines of the Applicant No. 2/daughter, and therefore, due to such physical harassment she had to do nominal job in the school of her father. According to her, she was getting meager amount of Rs.3000/- per month from the said job, and therefore, filed the application for maintenance alleging that the Non-applicant is earning handsomely by running tuition classes. Thus, she had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.60,000/- each per month to herself and her daughter. According to her, she was getting meager amount of Rs.3000/- per month from the said job, and therefore, filed the application for maintenance alleging that the Non-applicant is earning handsomely by running tuition classes. Thus, she had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.60,000/- each per month to herself and her daughter. The learned Family Court, after conducting the trial and adducing evidence on record, rejected claim of the Applicant No. 1/wife and granted meager amount of Rs.7000/- per month to the Applicant No. 2 under the impugned Judgment. Hence, this Revision Application. 4. The learned Counsel for Applicants strongly submitted that the learned Family Court has definitely erred in rejecting the claim for maintenance of the Applicant No. 1/wife and in granting only Rs.7000/- per month to the Applicant No. 2/daughter. He pointed out that there was evidence on record to show that the Non-applicant/husband was earning upto Rs.10,00,000/- per annum in the year 2015, and therefore, it should have been considered that at the time of delivering Judgment impugned, he must be having income of Rs.20,00,000/- per annum. He pointed out that the learned Family Court wrongly rejected the claim of maintenance in respect of the Applicant No. 1 by observing that she is well educated and able to earn handsomely by ignoring the fact that the Applicant No. 1 had stopped doing the job for maintaining her daughter of tender age. He submitted that there are certain Judgments which have laid down certain guidelines to determine the quantum of maintenance in case of earning wife. He relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . 5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Non-applicant/husband supported the impugned Judgment and submitted that the learned Family Court has considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and also relied upon vital admissions given by the Applicant No. 1/wife showing that she is an earning woman and able to maintain herself. 6. Perused the documents placed on record and the record and proceedings of the original Petition. 7. Admittedly, both the parties have led evidence on record. For the details, it is important to note that the Applicant No. 1/wife has given certain admission in her cross-examination that earlier to marriage she was doing job in the school being run by her father. 7. Admittedly, both the parties have led evidence on record. For the details, it is important to note that the Applicant No. 1/wife has given certain admission in her cross-examination that earlier to marriage she was doing job in the school being run by her father. She herself contended that she was earning Rs.3000/- per month. It has also come on record that after the marriage and during the period when she was residing with her father, she was doing job of honorary Principal in the School of her father. It is also not in dispute that she is M.Sc.B.Ed. and that too, in the subject of ‘Zoology’. It is significant to note that the income of Non-applicant/husband in the year 2015 has come on record by way of income tax returns. However, on going through the impugned Judgment it appears that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of Applicant No. 1 merely because she is highly educated and doing certain job in the school. Besides, it was observed that she also received amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as permanent alimony from her first husband along with certain jewelry. 8. Thus, it appears that the learned Family Court found the said honorarium or salary and the money received from her first husband as sufficient means to her. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (cited supra) has laid down certain guidelines in respect of determining quantum of maintenance in case of working woman by discussing observations in earlier decided cases and has come to the conclusion that even if wife is earning some income, but that should not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Certain observations made in the aforesaid case are reproduced herein-below: “79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain 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. 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. 80. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiraling 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. 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. 90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following Judgments: 90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. 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. 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.” 9. From the aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble Apex Court had made it clear that even though the wife is having certain income, then also considering the lifestyle of her husband she is entitled for separate maintenance from her husband for enabling her to live life in the same manner as that of husband. 10. Here in the present case, though it has come on record that the Applicant No. 1 is highly educated and doing certain job of teaching in the school being run by her father, but that cannot be a ground for rejecting her claim for maintenance from the Non-applicant/husband. It is extremely important to note that the income of husband to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum has been brought on record by the Applicants on the basis of income tax returns. However, there are only admissions by the Applicant No. 1 regarding her job, on record. The Non-applicant/husband has not specifically proved the actual income of his wife by producing reliable evidence on record. 11. It is to be noted that the said income of Non-applicant/husband was pertaining to the year 2015 and when the impugned Judgment was delivered, the said income must have been increased after about five years. Therefore, by considering the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajenesh Vs. Neha (cited supra), the order of rejecting claim for maintenance by the learned Family Court is definitely erroneous and perverse. On the contrary, the learned Family Court should have granted respectable amount as maintenance to both the Applicants/Petitioners by considering the financial status of the Non-applicant/husband. As such, the impugned Judgment definitely needs interference, and therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 12. On the contrary, the learned Family Court should have granted respectable amount as maintenance to both the Applicants/Petitioners by considering the financial status of the Non-applicant/husband. As such, the impugned Judgment definitely needs interference, and therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 12. The impugned Judgment and order is modified and the Non-applicant/husband is directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each per month to both the Applicants from the date of filing of original Petition No. E-542/2016. The Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Since the Revision Application is disposed of, pending Criminal Application (APPR) No. 180/2022 does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.