ORDER : 1. Applicant has filed this revision questioning the legality and sustainability of the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) in MJC No.1276 of 2016 whereby learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants in part and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that applicant No. 1 married with the non-applicant on 14.12.2015. From their wedlock they were blessed with applicant No. 2. After some time of marriage, applicant was harassed, ill-treated on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Applicant No. 1 was also assaulted at times by the non-applicant due to which applicant No. 1 has lodged report in the concerned Police Station, based upon which, crime for offence under Section 498A, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry (Prohibition) Act, 1961 was registered on 09.12.2016. The applicants filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. During pendency of the application, it was amended and applicant No. 2 herein was also added as applicant No. 2 in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was replied by non-applicant denying all the adverse pleadings made therein and further added that applicant No.1 herself is not interested in residing with non-applicant. He wants to continue the relationship, keep applicants with him and to maintain them. Applicant No. 1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, hence, application be rejected. The learned Family Court enquired into the application and based on the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the application in part and held that applicant No. 1 is having sufficient reasons for not residing in the company of the non-applicant. Considering the salary of non-applicant, as mentioned in the salary slip and further taking note of the fact that non-applicant is paying a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to his parents i.e. 7,500/- each to mother and father, has allowed the application in part and awarded Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the learned Court below erred in awarding meager sum of Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 15,000/- to his parents i.e. 7,500/- each to mother and father, has allowed the application in part and awarded Rs.4,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the learned Court below erred in awarding meager sum of Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,500/- to applicant No. 2 (daughter). Non-applicant no. 1 is getting salary of Rs. 39,000/- per month and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.04.2017 in civil appeal no.5367/2017 (kalyan dey chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury) applicant wife herself is entitled for at least onefourth of the salary of non-applicant (husband). He contended that income of salary as concluded by learned Family Court is 39,000/- per month and therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have awarded at least Rs.10,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 1 and further amount of Rs. 5,000/- in favor of applicant No. 2. He submits that application stated to have been filed by parents seeking maintenance is artificial, only to dislodge applicants from seeking appropriate amount of compensation for meeting their day to day needs. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of parents is filed during pendency of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants and within short period, non-applicant in settlement before the Lok Adalat agreed to pay Rs. 7,500/- each to father and mother (totaling sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month). The order obtained for payment of the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to his parents is illusionary only to defeat the rights of applicants. Non-applicant is not in actual terms paying the amount of maintenance awarded in favor of parents of non-applicant. 4. Learned counsel for non-applicant opposes the submission and would submit that applicant No.1 left the company of non-applicant without there being any cause, with her own will and choice. Non-applicant have made several attempts to settle the dispute, if any, and to brought applicants in his house. However, applicant No. 1 refused to reside in the company of non-applicant. Non-applicant is having age old parents and is having liability to maintain them. Apart from it, non-applicant is having two sisters and is having the liability of them also. Non-applicant has obtained loan and has to repay the loan amount. However, applicant No. 1 refused to reside in the company of non-applicant. Non-applicant is having age old parents and is having liability to maintain them. Apart from it, non-applicant is having two sisters and is having the liability of them also. Non-applicant has obtained loan and has to repay the loan amount. He has to deposit installment of Rs.18,000/- per month, after payment of an amount of maintenance pursuant to the order passed by Lok Adalat to his parents and making payment of maintenance of the amount awarded in favor of applicant, non-applicant is not having any balance to pay more than the amount awarded by the learned Family Court. Much more amount than the income and savings of non-applicant could not be awarded as maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the record of learned Family Court. 6. Perusal of the record would show that learned Family Court after considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence brought on record by respective parties held that applicants are having sufficient cause for residing separately from her husband and thereafter proceeded to calculate the amount of maintenance to be awarded to applicant. The finding of learned Family Court with regard to entitlement of maintenance to applicants is not put to challenge by non-applicant hence, the said finding of learned Family Court attained finality. In this criminal revision, applicants have prayed for enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court. In application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., applicants have prayed for Rs. 10,000/- each to applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 (totaling Rs. 20,000/- per month) as maintenance. In the affidavit of assets and liabilities, it is mentioned that applicant No. 1 is not having any source of income, no assets (movable or immovable) of her own. Details of liabilities of deponent to be nil and income of non-applicant shown as in the year 2016 as Rs. 39,000 per month. In evidence, applicants have brought salary slip as Exhibit P – 1 showing the income of non-applicant as Rs. 29,993/- and net salary as Rs. 26,812/-. The salary slip was of March, 2018. Another salary slip is produced as Exhibit P – 2 of the month of February, 2021 in which the gross salary is shown as 40,820/- and net salary as 37,126/-. 29,993/- and net salary as Rs. 26,812/-. The salary slip was of March, 2018. Another salary slip is produced as Exhibit P – 2 of the month of February, 2021 in which the gross salary is shown as 40,820/- and net salary as 37,126/-. The deduction from the gross salary is 3,694 i.e., towards G.P.F. and G.I.S.. In evidence, non-applicant in affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stated that he is getting salary of Rs. 39,000/-, depositing Rs. 18,000/- towards repayment of loan, making payment towards maintenance to his parents of Rs. 15,000/- and further Rs. 5,000/- as interim maintenance to applicants (totaling amount of payment which is shows is Rs. 38,000/-). In the facts of the case and the submission made by learned counsels for the respective parties, the moot question for consideration of this Court is what will be the reasonable amount of maintenance to be awarded to applicants? 7. In the fact of the case it is to be seen whether applicants, who are wife and daughter of non-applicant, will able to be maintain themselves in accordance with the comfort of the husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2.. Non-applicant along with covering memo dated 11.01.2024 has placed on record the copy of the order dated 11.09.2021 passed by National Lok Adalat held at Durg. Perusal of the award passed by Lok Adalat would show that the case No. is mentioned as MCRC No. 282 of 2021 meaning thereby the application seeking maintenance by parents of non-applicant was filed in the year 2021 whereas applicants have submitted the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 7.4.2017 before filing of application by parents. Non-applicant without any demur made submission before the learned Family Court that he is ready to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to applicants therein. Non-applicant on the date of entering into compromise in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was well aware that he is having liability and duty to maintain his family i.e. wife and children apart from his parents and further the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants was pending since 2017 i.e. about last four years, prior to entering into the settlement by non-applicant with his parents. 8. 8. It appears that non-applicant has not disclosed that one more application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is pending consideration on the be-haste of his wife and daughter and entered into settlement. If there had been fairness in the step taken by non-applicant, he could have got both the matters listed together before learned Family Court and ought to have settled the issue of making payment of amount of maintenance to parents as also the wife on the same date to which he has not made any effort. In view of the submission made by counsel for applicant, this Court has also glanced the record with regard to complying the order passed by Lok Adalat of making payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month to his parents. In the record, non-applicant has not placed any proof that pursuant to order passed by learned Family Court, directing non-applicant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to his parents, non-applicant is regularly depositing or paying the amount of maintenance awarded to his parents. 9. Considering the rival submission made by learned counsel for respective parties before this Court with regard to depositing/not depositing the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as ordered by Lok Adalat, this Court made certain observation, upon which, learned counsel for non-applicant in the proceedings dated 12.01.2024 prayed for time to place on record the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by parents of non-applicant as also the proof of payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month to his parents. When the case was listed on 05.02.2024, learned counsel for non-applicant again took time and thereafter the case was listed on 12.02.2024, however, even after granting sufficient time to learned counsel for non-applicant, he could not place any record with regard to application field under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the parents of non-applicant as also any document to prove that non-applicant, complying with the order passed by Lok Adalat, is regularly paying the amount of maintenance as order in favor of parents of non-applicant. 10. From the aforementioned facts, discussion and the contents of non-applicant in entering into settlement to pay amount of Rs. 10. From the aforementioned facts, discussion and the contents of non-applicant in entering into settlement to pay amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month, it is prima facie appearing to this Court that settlement of non-applicant with parents for payment of maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- is not in actual sense but to defeat the right of applicants from getting actual and reasonable amount of maintenance for their survival. 11. The law regulates relationship between people and also prescribe pattern of behavior. It reflects the value of society. Role of Court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to held the law achieve its purpose. Law of society is a living organism. The Court, as interpreter of law, is suppose to settle omissions, correct uncertainties and harmonize result of justice through a method of free decision. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has considered several issues coming across in the claim of maintenance by wife and has also issued the guidelines. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. Sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. The object behind right to maintenance is to ensure that dependent spouse is not reduce to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment has also observed that the amount of maintenance is to be awarded considering 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 and thereafter to arrive at appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. It is also observed that the Court must have due regard to the standard of living of husband as well as spiraling inflation and high cost of living and observed thus: 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. “78. 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. “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 nonworking wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 ; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] 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. 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. 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. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] 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 meagre 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.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury has observed thus: “16. …. Following Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 129 , in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. ……….” 15. Reverting back to the facts of the case as discussed above, the parents of non-applicant submitted an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2021 i.e. after five years of the filing of application by applicant and immediately thereafter non-applicant entered into settlement and under compromise before the Lok Adalat, agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month. Even after making an observation by this Court and granting time to learned counsel for non-applicant, has not submitted application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. submitted by parents of non-applicant nor has placed any document to show that non-applicant is regularly paying monthly maintenance to his parents. It shows that entire exercise of application seeking maintenance by parents is not bona fide but with ulterior view. Even if non-applicant being son, husband and father has to pay the amount of maintenance, then the balance is to be made for making payment which it appears to the Court that non-applicant has purposefully not disclosed the pendency of the other proceeding of maintenance filed by applicant at the time of entering into compromise with his parents. In view of income of the non-applicant to the tune of Rs. In view of income of the non-applicant to the tune of Rs. 39,000/- per month, I find that amount of maintenance awarded to applicants is meager which needs to be cured by enhancing the amount of maintenance to applicant wife and child of non-applicant. 16. Considering the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) and the guidelines issued, I am of the view that applicant No. 1 being wife of non-applicant, in view of rate of inflation and needs of applicants for residence, food, clothing and medical, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 2 aged about 1½ years, would be reasonable amount of maintenance. It is ordered accordingly. 17. For the foregoing discussions, the revision application is allowed in part and the amount of maintenance as awarded by learned Family Court to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- in favor of applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- in favor of applicant No. 2 is enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 2. Applicants would be entitled for amount of maintenance from the date of application. The amount of maintenance paid by non-applicant is liable to be adjusted. The arrears of amount shall be paid by the non-applicant in installments of Rs.2000/- per month in addition to the monthly maintenance amount as ordered by this Court, till the payment of entire arrears of the maintenance. Other conditions as mentioned in the impugned order of learned Family Court shall remain intact.