Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 614 (CHH)

Sachirani Thakur W/o Shri Pradeep Thakur v. Pradeep Thakur S/o Shri Ramanuj Thakur

2024-08-28

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS

body2024
ORDER : 1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 9-11-2023 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Mungeli (CG) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 229/2023 by which the application filed under Section 123 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant for grant of maintenance has been dismissed on the count that the applicant is residing separately without any rhyme and reason. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the marriage between the applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 31-7-2019 in District Mungeli as per Hindu Rites and customs and at the time of marriage, the father of the applicant had given gifts and gold according to their financial status. The case of the applicant is that immediately after some time of the marriage, the respondent and his family members started torturing her for demand of dowry, demanded one Car and 10 Tolas gold. Even after this, the applicant continued to tolerate everything, but due to constant harassment by them, she informed her parents about this, accordingly her father tried to fulfill the demand of his daughter’s-in-laws by selling his agricultural land and gave him three grams of gold to fulfill their demand. Even after receiving the same, they started beating and torturing her by saying that she did not bring the Car in dowry. On 10-4-2022 the respondent again demanded for Car and told her unless and until the car is not given she will not be allowed to enter into her matrimonial house. This has compelled her to leave her matrimonial house and started living with her parents in her parental house. 3. It is also case of the applicant/wife that the parents of applicant and members of the society requested to keep the applicant with the respondent in the social meeting but the respondent again started demanding the car as dowry and he refused to keep her with him which has compelled the applicant/wife to file a complaint against her husband and her in-laws. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered as Crime No. 105 of 2022 under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC against the respondent and his family members. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered as Crime No. 105 of 2022 under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC against the respondent and his family members. It is further contended that the respondent/husband has 25 acres of land where he is getting two crops in a year from which he is earning Rs. 10,00,000/- and he is also doing business of cement and iron etc., from which he is earning Rs.70,000/- per month. Thus, the respondent/husband is capable of good financial condition and since it is his responsibility to maintain his wife which he has neglected, therefore, she claimed 20,000/- per month as maintenance by filing an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. Respondent has filed reply denying the allegations made in the application. It is also denied that there is land in his name and he is getting income of Rs.70,000/- per month from supplying of cement, iron and sand. It is also case of the respondent that the applicant/wife is capable of maintaining herself as she is working in the Honda showroom, therefore, denied the grant of maintenance. It is also denied that the respondent/husband used to torture her. On the contrary she was teasing him by saying that he is not good looking person. It has also been contended that he is working as daily wage employee and was earning Rs.150/- per day and would pray for rejection of the application. 5. The applicant to substantiate her claim has examined herself by way of an affidavit as required under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC wherein she has reiterated the stand which she has taken in the application and exhibited the Form B-1 Keshbandhi Katauni of the land wherein the land has been recorded in the name of Ramanij Thakur who is father of her husband. The applicant was cross examined by the respondent and in the cross examination it has been brought on record that the respondent’s family is having 15 acres of agricultural land and he has three brothers and two sisters. She has denied that the respondent is working as Driver. In the cross examination she has stated that the respondent is running shop of cement and iron from where he is earning Rs. 5-6 lacs. She has also stated that she is not aware whether the respondent is filing income return or not. She has denied that the respondent is working as Driver. In the cross examination she has stated that the respondent is running shop of cement and iron from where he is earning Rs. 5-6 lacs. She has also stated that she is not aware whether the respondent is filing income return or not. She has denied that shop is not recorded in the name of her husband. She has also denied that she is doing private work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She denied all the allegations made in the reply. Applicant/wife has also been cross examined wherein she has stated that after one month of the marriage, from the very beginning her husband/respondent started torturing her and he was demanding gold, silver and car but she has not lodged any report against him. She has stated that her father has four acres of land and at the time of marriage they have given 6 Tolas gold. She has also stated that the respondent’s family is having 15 acres of land and respondent is also earning from that shop, as such the respondent/husband has sufficient source of income. 6. The applicant has also examined Smt. Vishwamohini (PW-2) mother of the applicant wherein she has stated that she was ready to send her daughter to her husband but her daughter will not live in village Bhudwa and stated that the respondent can start the business at her place. 7. Respondent was examined himself as DW-1 and he has reiterated the stand which he has taken in written statement and also stated that he is not having any land on his name. He has also stated that his wife is ready to live with him if his parents live separately. He denied that he is running the shop of cement, iron. He has also denied that he is earning Rs 60,000/- to 70,000/- per month from that shop. He has also stated that he is not aware that 12-13 acres of land is recorded in the name of his father. He has also stated that he lives separately from his father. He has admitted that no partition took place between his brothers. 8. Respondent has examined Devraj Singh (DW-2) who has stated that he knows both applicant and non-applicant and he has admitted that their case is pending before the Court regarding demand of dowry against respondent and his family members. He has admitted that no partition took place between his brothers. 8. Respondent has examined Devraj Singh (DW-2) who has stated that he knows both applicant and non-applicant and he has admitted that their case is pending before the Court regarding demand of dowry against respondent and his family members. He has stated that the applicant used to tease her husband but he has admitted that there is no proof regarding teasing by the applicant. He has also admitted that no partition took place between the brothers of the respondent regarding property of agricultural land. 9. Respondent/husband has also examined one Sanjay Singh who is neighbour of the respondent and Raj Kumar but these witnesses were not cross examined as respondent has closed his evidence on 10-10-2023. Thereafter, the matter was listed for arguments on 19-10-2023. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the applicant/wife vide order dated 24-7-2023 and this was continued till the matter was finally decided and by the impugned order dated 9-11-2023 application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance has been rejected. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant has preferred the instant criminal revision. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife would submit that the learned Family Court has committed illegality in not awarding any maintenance to the applicant while deciding the application whereas at the time of considering the interim application, interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month was granted to the applicant. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that once offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Cr.P.C. has been registered against the respondent and his family members, it is sufficient reason for the applicant to leave the matrimonial house as she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, as such the finding recorded, by the learned trial Court that there is no justifiable reason for the applicant to leave the matrimonial house suffers from perversity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 11. 11. To substantiate the submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Anju Garg and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SC Online 1314 and would submit that the maintenance of wife and children is duty of the husband, as such it is the duty of an able bodied man to earn by legitimate mans and maintain wife and children, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality. He would further submit that proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children to get maintenance in speedy manner. He would further submit that learned Family Court should have seen that the object of Section 125 of CrP.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and it is a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife and would pray for allowing this criminal revision. 12. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is legal and justified which does not warrant any interference by this court and would pray for dismissal of the criminal revision. He would further submit that since the Family Court has not granted any maintenance to the applicant this Court cannot ascertain the quantum of the maintenance. As such in the worst view of the matter, if the applicant establishes that there is perversity or illegality in the order then only the matter can be remitted back to the Family Court for assessing the quantum of the maintenance amount. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below. 14. From the submissions made above, the point to be determined by this Court whether the learned Family Court was justified in dismissing the application for grant of maintenance. To determine this point, it is expedient for this Court to understand the object of Section 125 of the old Cr.P.C. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Order of maintenance of wives, children and parents: (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain: (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself. To determine this point, it is expedient for this Court to understand the object of Section 125 of the old Cr.P.C. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Order of maintenance of wives, children and parents: (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain: (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself. (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself. A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. For the purposes of this Chapter: (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority. (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. For the purposes of this Chapter: (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority. (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each month’s allowance allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.” 15. From perusal of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. it is clear that object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. The object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. means to achieve social purpose and to prevent vagrancy, remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg and another (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 9 and 10 which are as under: “(9) At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 353 . This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under: “In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq, (1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237 the Court opined that: (SCC p. 631, Para 16) “16.........Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.” 8. Farooq, (1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237 the Court opined that: (SCC p. 631, Para 16) “16.........Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.” 8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442, while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that: (SCC p. 378, Para 3) “3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife.” 9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762, while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that: (SCC p. 489, Para 15) “15........While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.” 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356, reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, Para 6) “6..........Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356, reiterating the legal position the Court held: (SCC p. 320, Para 6) “6..........Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787.” 11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma, (2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346, it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children.” (10) This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.” 16. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (Supra) has considered the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has held in Paras 77, 78, 80 and 81 as under: “77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant 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 dependant 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. 79. In Manish Jain vs. 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. 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 Applicant/wife has also cross examined wherein she has stated that after marriage one month of the marriage, from the very beginning her husband/respondent started torturing her and he was demanding gold, silver and car but she has nor lodged any report against the respondent. She has stated that her father has four acres of land and at the time of marriage they have given 6 tolas gold. She has also stated that the respondent’s family is having 15 acres of land and also earning from that shop, as such the respondent/husband has sufficient source of income, 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. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Others, (1997) 7 SCC 7 . Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2017) 15 SCC 801 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 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. 82. 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. 82. 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 Applicant/wife has also cross examined wherein she has stated that after marriage one month of the marriage, from the very beginning her husband/respondent started torturing her and he was demanding gold, silver and car but she has nor lodged any report against the respondent. She has stated that her father has four acres of land and at the time of marriage they have given 6 tolas gold. She has also stated that the respondent’s family is having 15 acres of land and also earning from that shop, as such the respondent/husband has sufficient source of income. 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.” 17. Therefore, learned Family Court while deciding the application for grant of maintenance should have considered the fact that the applicant was compelled to file a case under Section 498-A/34 of Cr.P.C. against the respondents and his family members. This fact has also been admitted by DW-2 Devraj Singh in his cross examination regarding criminal case against the family members of the respondents pertaining to demand of dowry. This is sufficient to record a finding that the applicant was subjected to torture and harassment for demand of dowry which has compelled her to leave the matrimonial house. Even the respondent before the trial Court has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that there was no justifiable reason for the applicant to leave her matrimonial house. Thus, the learned Family Court not only overlooked and disregarded the settled legal position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and proceeded in unfair manner. Even the respondent before the trial Court has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that there was no justifiable reason for the applicant to leave her matrimonial house. Thus, the learned Family Court not only overlooked and disregarded the settled legal position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and proceeded in unfair manner. The finding of the learned Family Court suffers from perversity or illegality as the applicant in her evidence has clearly stated that as to how she was harassed and was subjected to cruelty by the respondent which has compelled her to leave her matrimonial house and neglected to maintain her. As such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. 18. Now, this Court has to ascertain the maintenance amount to be awarded. The learned counsel for respondent has made submission that since there is no assessment of the quantum by the learned Family Court therefore, this Court cannot assess the quantum of maintenance, deserves to be rejected. As the applicant has also produced the documents Ex.P.1 i.e. Kistbandi Khatauni (Revenue Record) which clearly demonstrates that the land bearing area 5.0820 Ha which comes to 12.5 Acres which was recorded in the name of respondent’s father and the area where land is situated is fully irrigated as such it cannot be presumed that the respondent is not earning from the said land. The applicant in her evidence has also stated that the respondent is running shop pertaining to sale of cement, iron etc. but she has not produced any documents, even, the respondent has not produced any document or evidence to substantiate that he is working as labour and earning Rs. 150/- per day, thus, based upon the materials placed on record, it cannot be denied that the respondent was not having sufficient source of income to maintain his wife. Even if once it is held that he is capable of working, it is his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (supra). 19. Thus, this Court considering the living standard of the applicant as well as the respondent, the cost of living and also the price index, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 19. Thus, this Court considering the living standard of the applicant as well as the respondent, the cost of living and also the price index, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month from the date the application for grant of maintenance was rejected on 09.11.2023. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 9-11-2023 passed by the learned Family Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 229 of 2023 is quashed. 21. Pending interlocutory, applications, if any, stand disposed of.