JUDGMENT : Manoj Bajaj, J. Petitioners-Smt. Himani Agarwal, Km. Sanvi, Master Dhruv have filed this criminal revision petition to challenge the order dated 19th June, 2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Meerut, whereby their application bearing No. 5A in Case No. 344/2020 filed under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed by granting monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- each in favour of the minor children (petitioner Nos. 2 and 3), whereas the claim of the petitioner No. 1 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts leading to the present criminal revision petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure against opposite party No. 2-Devesh Gupta for grant of maintenance, wherein it is pleaded that petitioner No. 1 Himani Agarwal got married to Devesh Gupta-opposite party No. 2 on 13th July, 2016 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Meerut, and this was the second marriage of both the parties, as their previous marriage with their respective spouses stood dissolved. In the marriage, the parents of petitioner No. 1 spent a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is more than their capacity, and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home situated at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, where she discharged all the responsibilities towards the husband and his other family members. The opposite party No. 2 and his relatives were not happy with the dowry and they started harassing the petitioner No. 1 and demanded a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, as for their business expansion, Rs. 50,00,000/- were required. The petitioner No. 1 expressed her inability to meet the demand and this resulted in beatings to her. The petitioner No. 1 was employed as a clerk in Bank of Baroda, Meerut at the time of her marriage, but after marriage, she got herself transferred to Paschim Vihar, Delhi and her entire salary used to be given to the opposite party No. 2 and his relatives. On 28th February, 2017, the petitioner No. 1 was blessed with twin children Sanvi and Dhruv, i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, at Gupta Medical Centre, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 informed her parents about her maltreatment as well as the demand of Rs. On 28th February, 2017, the petitioner No. 1 was blessed with twin children Sanvi and Dhruv, i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, at Gupta Medical Centre, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 informed her parents about her maltreatment as well as the demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- by opposite party No. 2 and his relatives, however, the attempts of settlement at the instance of the parents of the petitioner No. 1 proved futile. The opposite party No. 2 and his relatives maintained their demand, and finally, the couple separated w.e.f. 8th April, 2019. Since the date of separation, the petitioner No. 1 alongwith children is residing with her parents and is single-handedly taking care of them. At times, she takes leave, which results deduction in her monthly salary. As per the pleadings, the opposite party No. 2 is a hale and hearty person, who is running a business in the name of Laxmi Plastics at 487, Peera Garhi, New Delhi as well as at A-81, Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi and is having an income of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. The opposite party No. 2 has a house consisting of three storeys and ground floor has been rented out for Rs. 20,000/- per month. That apart, two shops situated at Kishanganj Gaushala also fetch Rs. 40,000/- monthly rental income. The mother of opposite party No. 2 is a Principal in a primary school and she is also drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite party No. 2 is having no other liability except to maintain his wife and children, whereas the petitioner No. 1 is unable to meet the expenses singly-handedly as the opposite party No. 2 has neglected the petitioners by refusing to fulfill his responsibilities. In the year 2019, the children were admitted in Pre-Nursery School and petitioner No. 1 incurred expenses of Rs. 30,400/-, besides other costs of books, stationary, conveyance etc. Similarly, in the year 2020, again the petitioner No. 1 incurred expenses for admission of the children in the nursery class. Lastly, she claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 25,000/- each for her two minor children. 3. On similar lines, by way of a separate application, prayer was made for grant of monthly interim maintenance. 4. Lastly, she claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for herself and Rs. 25,000/- each for her two minor children. 3. On similar lines, by way of a separate application, prayer was made for grant of monthly interim maintenance. 4. The opposite party No. 2 filed his written reply dated 4th November, 2022, in response to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and raised preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action etc. On merits, the date of marriage, the period of living together and the birth of children have not been disputed, however, the other averments relating to the expenses incurred at the time of marriage by the parents of the petitioner No. 1 have been denied. Similarly, the allegations regarding demand of dowry and maltreatment to the petitioner No. 1 have been refuted. According to the stand of the opposite party No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 is voluntarily residing separately from the husband, and further it has been highlighted that she being employed with the Bank of Baroda is drawing a handsome salary, therefore, is not entitled to the maintenance. After marriage, the opposite party No. 2 and his family members took good care of petitioner No. 1, but she was never cordial to the opposite party No. 2 and his relatives, who used to misbehave with them. As per the averments in the reply, the petitioner No. 1 used to pressurize the opposite party No. 2 to live separately from his parents etc. and as he did not agree, therefore, she left his company. In respect of the income, the opposite party No. 2 has denied the averments made by the petitioner No. 1, and asserted that he being an employee of M/s. Oberoi Paints Private Ltd. is drawing a monthly salary of only Rs. 20,000/-. Additionally, the opposite party No. 2 has pleaded interference by the father of the petitioner No. 1 in the matrimonial relations, and also mentioned that the efforts were made to convince the petitioner No. 1 to live like an ideal wife as per the norms of the society, but her behaviour did not change. The petitioner No. 1 and her children are residing voluntarily at her parental house. In the end, it is prayed that the application filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 5. The petitioner No. 1 and her children are residing voluntarily at her parental house. In the end, it is prayed that the application filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 5. Copies of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and written objections filed by the opposite party No. 2-husband are annexed as Annexues 2 and 3, respectively. 6. After completion of pleadings, the parties filed their respective affidavits in compliance of the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and the same are on record as Annexues 4 and 5. 7. Upon considering the pleadings, evidence of the parties and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Family Court, Meerut proceeded to partly allow the application by awarding the monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- each to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (minor children), whereas the claim of maintenance on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 (wife) has been dismissed. Hence, this criminal revision petition. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 29.8.2023 passed by this Court, the opposite party No. 2 filed his counter-affidavit dated 29.10.2023. 9. As per the averments in the counter-affidavit, the opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that on 8th April, 2019, a settlement had been arrived at between the parties, and according to it, the petitioner No. 1 left his company to reside with her parents, who had also given an undertaking that no case would be instituted against the opposite party No. 2. As per this settlement, the petitioner No. 1 had taken back her belongings, jewellery etc. and while leaving the company of the opposite party No. 2, she left the children with the father. Later, she not only violated her own undertaking by filing the case, but she also forcibly took away the children. To support his stand about income, the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record the income tax returns for the years 2022-23 (Annexure C.A.-6 to the counter-affidavit) as well as his appointment letter (Annexure C.A.-5 to the counter-affidavit). Further reliance is placed upon the rent agreements to show that the opposite party No. 2 is residing at a rented accommodation and prayed that the revision petition be dismissed with costs. 10. Further reliance is placed upon the rent agreements to show that the opposite party No. 2 is residing at a rented accommodation and prayed that the revision petition be dismissed with costs. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the opposite party No. 2 has refused to maintain his wife and two minor children by deliberately neglecting them, who are unable to meet their expenses and the Family Court, Meerut has not properly appreciated the stature of the parties, particularly, the income of the opposite party No. 2 while partly accepting the claim of the petitioners by only awarding Rs. 2000/- per month to each of two children, who are presently seven years old. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner No. 1 was employed as a clerk with Bank of Baroda at the time of her wedding with the opposite party No. 2, and she is presently drawing a salary of approx Rs. 35,000/- per month and in this meagre amount, she is unable to meet the expenses for herself and two children, who are now going to school. While drawing the attention of the Court to the Annexue 6, learned counsel has pointed out that an expense of Rs. 1,20,000/- each, for the children has been incurred by the mother for getting them admitted in the school and to meet with the rising cost of education etc., there is no contribution by the husband-opposite party No. 2. 11. Learned counsel submits that the opposite party No. 2 has made every possible attempt to conceal his actual monthly income by wrongly portraying himself to be an employee of M/s. Oberoi Paints Pvt. Ltd., whereas at the time of marriage, he was having a flourishing business in the name of Laxmi Plastics, and apart from this, the opposite party No. 2 is getting good rental income. In this regard, she has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments contained in para 20 of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the Family Court, Meerut has not appreciated the other attending circumstances while granting only a sum of Rs. 2000/- each to the children as monthly interim maintenance. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order be modified and the children be awarded monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- each. 12. 2000/- each to the children as monthly interim maintenance. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order be modified and the children be awarded monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- each. 12. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that as far as the rejection of maintenance to the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, she does not challenge the said part in the impugned order, and confines her prayer only for enhancement of the monthly interim maintenance to the children. 13. The prayer has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, who has argued that the petitioner No. 1 after marriage has been exercising cruelty upon the opposite party No. 2 by pressurizing him to live separately from his parents, and also to seek his share in the immovable property. He submits that since the opposite party No. 2 was not agreeing to these unjustified demands, therefore, in order to disturb the married life of the opposite party No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 got herself transferred from Delhi to Meerut. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the appointment letter dated 1.7.2022 (Annexure 5 to the counter-affidavit) to contend that the opposite party No. 2 is working as Assistant Sales Manager with M/s. Oberoi Paints Pvt. Ltd., who is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-, whereas the income of the petitioner No. 1 is comparatively higher, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 could not have been burdened by the Family Court, Meerut. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the written reply, particularly, the response to para 20 of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to highlight the specific denial of the pleadings regarding his income. He submits that the Family Court, Meerut has rightly considered the income of the opposite party No. 2 as Rs. 20,000/- per month, while ordering interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- each for two children and the said order does not call for any interference. He prays that the revision petition be dismissed. 14. He submits that the Family Court, Meerut has rightly considered the income of the opposite party No. 2 as Rs. 20,000/- per month, while ordering interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- each for two children and the said order does not call for any interference. He prays that the revision petition be dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that originally the petitioner No. 1 was employed as a clerk with Bank of Baroda at Meerut and after marriage, she got herself transferred to Paschim Vihar Branch at New Delhi, therefore, the stand of the opposite party No. 2 that in order to harass husband, the petitioner No. 1 got herself transferred to Meerut is absolutely wrong and incorrect. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that as far as the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with the opposite party No. 2 and birth of two children as well as separation of the couple is concerned, the same is not disputed. Even, the status of the petitioner No. 1 being employed with Bank of Baroda, who is drawing salary of approx Rs. 35,000/- is also not in dispute, and the controversy involved in the present revision petition revolves around the issue of adequate interim maintenance for the children. The contesting parties filed their respective declarations relating to the relevant information about their status, income, liability etc. before the Family Court, Meerut, in compliance of the directions by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) and the said declarations are on record as Annexues 4 and 5. 16. The opposite party has claimed that he is only drawing a salary of Rs. 20,000/- being employed as Assistant Sales Manager with M/s. Oberoi Paints Pvt. Ltd. and relied upon the appointment letter dated 1st July, 2022, who has also claimed that he is living separately at a property bearing No. 487/13 (One Room Set), Peera Garhi, School Road, New Delhi and in this regard, the rent agreement executed by the landlord in favour of the opposite party No. 2 w.e.f. 21st September, 2020 with renewal has been placed on record. As per the stand of the petitioner No. 1, after her marriage on 13th July, 2016 with the opposite party No. 2, she resided in her matrimonial home at BG-7/15, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and this fact has not been refuted by the opposite party No. 2 in the written reply. The opposite party No. 2 has taken a candid stand that the root cause of differences between the couple arose when his wife pressurized him for residing separately from his parents, and the said request was not acceded to by him, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily left his company. 17. Assumably, if it was so, it does not appeal to prudence that after separation of the parties in April, 2019, why the opposite party No. 2 is residing separately from his parents in a one room set. At this juncture, it would be apt to note that the address of one room set allegedly taken on rent by husband is the same, which is mentioned by the petitioner No. 1 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., where opposite party No. 2 has been running his factory in the name of M/s. Laxmi Plastics. Though, the opposite party No. 2 specifically denied this assertion of having business at the said address in paragraph 16 of his written reply (Annexure 3), however, during the course of hearing, when learned counsel for the husband was confronted with the conflicting stand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 conceded that earlier the husband was running the said business, but later on it was closed. Concededly, no particulars of income derived by the opposite party No. 2 from the said business have been revealed, much less the manner of disposal of the said business. The income tax returns relied upon by the opposite party No. 2 w.e.f. the year 2022, contain the same address, where his parents are residing, i.e. BG-7/15, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Thus, it throws serious doubts on his monthly expenses of Rs. 5000/- on rent for his separate residence. 18. The income tax returns relied upon by the opposite party No. 2 w.e.f. the year 2022, contain the same address, where his parents are residing, i.e. BG-7/15, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Thus, it throws serious doubts on his monthly expenses of Rs. 5000/- on rent for his separate residence. 18. Similarly, the other attending circumstances pleaded by the petitioner No. 1 to highlight the total income of the family including the rental income as well as the salary drawn by the mother of opposite party No. 2 are concerned, the same are also specifically denied by the opposite party No. 2, in the same paragraph 16 of the written reply, but during the course of hearing, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 fairly stated that indeed the mother of the opposite party No. 2 was employed as Principal of school, but according to the learned counsel, now she has retired. Most importantly, the opposite party No. 2 is unable to produce any document to show the contribution by the father towards the expenses to school going children. 19. At this stage, when learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 was confronted with the conduct of the opposite party No. 2, who not only attempted to conceal his actual income, but also pleaded monthly cost of rental accommodation to exaggerate his expenses, learned counsel prayed for taking up the case after sometime, in order to seek instructions from the opposite party No. 2, if, he consents for the enhancement of the monthly maintenance awarded in favour of the children. 20. After sometime, the case was again taken up, and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 stated that the father is ready to enhance the maintenance in favour of the children by Rs. 1000/- each. 21. In the considered opinion of this Court, the offer given by the learned counsel for the husband is apparently disproportionate. 22. Of course, there cannot be a straight formula for assessing the maintenance for the minor children, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) has laid down broad principles for consideration by the Courts to assess the maintenance amount, which include the income of the parties, their assets, standard of living, social and financial status of the parties and other attending circumstances including liabilities of the parties etc. The facts and circumstances of the case would show that the allegations by the spouses against each other relating to their behaviour would be tested on the basis of the evidence, but as far as the claim of interim maintenance is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Family Court, Meerut has not granted adequate interim maintenance to the children as the same is on lower side. The information disclosed by the opposite party No. 2 in his declaration (Annexure 5) would reveal that he is having no liability at all, much less of his own parents or any sibling. In the said information, it is also clearly revealed by opposite party No. 2 that he is not meeting with any medical expenses of any of his family members and has no other liability like any payment of loan/debt etc. 23. The opposite party has not contributed anything towards maintenance of his school going children, who further in order to avoid his statutory liability has not disclosed his income fairly to mislead the Court. The opposite party No. 2 is an able-bodied person, therefore, considering his conduct, this Court is compelled to draw adverse inference against him while assessing the monthly interim maintenance for the children. Thus, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to allow interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each to the twin children, to be paid from the date of the application dated 17.7.2020. The criminal revision petition is allowed.