JUDGMENT : Madan Pal Singh, J. 1. The Written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Puja Bhargava Singh and Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 3 97 /401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 8 th October, 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 203 of 2022 (Ritika Gupta & Another Vs. Gaurav Gupta) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the trial court while allowing the application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs.20,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 10 th December, 2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals. From the aforesaid wedlock, one daughter i.e. opposite party no.3 was born. After some time, for the reasons best known to them, the relationship between the husband and wife i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 became strained and incompatible. Thereafter, the revisionist filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, which was numbered as Case No. 1341 of 2021. Opposite party no.2 also filed a petition under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT . Whereafter she lodged a first information report against the revisionist on 9 th August, 2021 under Section 4 98-A and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act at Police Station-Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. Ultimately, opposite party no.2 filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 14 th February, 2022. (5) The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist are as under: (i) (a) marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no.2 which was solemnized on 10 th December, 2018, was an arrange marriage. Ultimately, opposite party no.2 filed the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 14 th February, 2022. (5) The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist are as under: (i) (a) marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no.2 which was solemnized on 10 th December, 2018, was an arrange marriage. Before marriage, the opposite party no.2 was suffering from anxiety problem and after first day of marriage she fell sick since due to which she was taken to the hospital by the revisionist and after treatment she was becoming better but her medicine for the said anxiety problem was going on continuously. Meanwhile, she got pregnant and delivered a child on 14 th August, 2020. Since the applicant's anxiety problem was not getting cured, due to which the relationship between both of them became strained and resultant she left the house of the revisionist and started living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist at her maternal house along with opposite party no.3 without any reason. The anxiety disorder by which opposite party no.2 was suffering has been admitted by the opposite party no.2 herself in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and by her father, by means of an affidavit given before the trial court. (b) it is admitted by opposite party no.2 in her affidavit which is at page-70 of the paper book that the revisionist is earning Rs. 6 lakhs per annum as per the returns of the company in the year 2020 meaning thereby that the monthly net salary of the revisionist was Rs. 50,000/- per month in 2020 being director of the company, namely, Rakshit Engineering Works Private Limited. (ii) The opposite party no.2 has herself admitted that she is well qualified lady having degree of B.Com and Diploma in Interior Designing and before marriage and till the delivery of her daughter i.e. opposite party no.3, she was working and earning a handsome amount. She had also filed Income Tax Return which shows that her annual income was Rs. 3 lakh and as per the balance sheet, Rs. 5 lakhs were shown in her bank account. (iii) As per the documents of the company filed by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court, in 2020 the salary of the revisionist was Rs. 6 lakhs and at that time the company was earning profit. 3 lakh and as per the balance sheet, Rs. 5 lakhs were shown in her bank account. (iii) As per the documents of the company filed by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court, in 2020 the salary of the revisionist was Rs. 6 lakhs and at that time the company was earning profit. Balance sheet of 2023 of the company, which is at page 155 of the paper book, shows that the revisionist was getting salary of Rs. 2,40,000/- per year as the company was suffered loss. According to the Income Tax Returns of the revisionist of the years 2023- 2024, 2022-2023, 2021-2022, which are at page no. 199 onwards of the paper book produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court, the revisionist has submitted his Income Tax Return of Rs. 4,74,000/- in which the salary of the revisionist is shown as Rs. 2,40,000/-. Similarly the ITR of 2022-2023 of the revisionist shows that he has submitted the ITR of Rs. 5,03, 000/- showing his salary Rs. 2,40,000/-. (iv). The trial court has not considered the averments made by the revisionist in his affidavit in which he has mentioned that in 2022- 2023, his salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month and in 2019-2020, his salary was Rs. 50,000/- per month, whereas the trial court has considered the earning of the revisionist as i.e. Rs. 6 lakhs per annum in 2019-2020 and the monthly income of the revisionist would be Rs.50,000/-, even though the trial court has miscalculated itself while awarding the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under the impugned judgment which is not 25% of the net income of the revisionist. The trial court has not considered the fact that the company in which the revisionist is working as one of the Director is a separate legal entity of which the director has received remuneration only from the profit of the company and because of the same when the company was in loss, in the year 2022-2023, the salary of the revisionist was Rs. 2,40,000/- per annum. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the total amount of monthly allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (Rs. 2,40,000/- per annum. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the total amount of monthly allowance as awarded by the trial court under the impugned judgment i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (Rs. 20,000/- per month each) is too excessive, exorbitant and not commensurate with the net income of the revisionist which is de hors the settled legal position of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129 and also in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200 , therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other-hand, the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and order while awarding Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs.20,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (daughter) i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- per month towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of instant application, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have following submissions: (i). In the marriage of opposite party no.2 with the revisionist, the parents of opposite party no.2 gave much dowry beyond their capacity from which the revisionist and his parents were not satisfied. After some time of marriage, for additional demand of dowry, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws including the revisionist even though she faced all things for saving her marriage that cause anxiety problem to her. When opposite party no.2 was got pregnant she was forced to undergo sex determination test which she denied and because of the same there was continuous conflicts in her matrimonial house. When she delivered a child, her in-laws including the revisionist and her mother-in-law started torturing her for not having a boy and in the same process, her mother-in-law started administering her some Babaji's powder to give birth to a boy. When she delivered a child, her in-laws including the revisionist and her mother-in-law started torturing her for not having a boy and in the same process, her mother-in-law started administering her some Babaji's powder to give birth to a boy. After consumption of the same, she felt exhausted and tired. (ii) it is no doubt true that opposite party no.2 was working in INFID, Kanpur Nagar at a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was also teaching at Gulmohar School, Kanpur Nagar. However, before the marriage, the revisionist compelled the opposite party no.2 to either quit her job or leave the prospect of getting married, as such, opposite party no.2 resigned from her job weighing her bright career for saving her married life. At the time of delivery of child when the opposite party no.2 came to her parental house, the in- laws including the revisionist also came there and assuring that after some time, they would take opposite party no.2 along with her daughter with them at her matrimonial house. However, since they were not satisfied with the dowry as given by the parents of opposite party no.2 and also with birth of a girl child, her in-laws along with revisionist connived with intentions to not take her back and filed a false complaint against the opposite party no.2 on the Chief Minister Portal. Several efforts were made by the parents and other family members of opposite party no.2 to save her marriage relation for reconciling the dispute with the revisionist but all efforts went in vein. The revisionist coming out with his true motives filed a case under Section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT . The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been considered by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and has rightly come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist along with her daughter at her parental house with sufficient reasons. (iii). After filing the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the revisionist was required to file his affidavit qua his income. Though the opposite party no. 2 has disclosed each and every fact, the revisionist preferred to not to file his objection / reply but only his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities whereby he concealed the several material facts regarding his income. 2 and 3, the revisionist was required to file his affidavit qua his income. Though the opposite party no. 2 has disclosed each and every fact, the revisionist preferred to not to file his objection / reply but only his Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities whereby he concealed the several material facts regarding his income. Though the revisionist was required to file his Income Tax Returns of one year before marriage, at the time of separation and at the time of institution of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but he deliberately not filed the income tax returns of the said period and filed the same of other periods. He has also not filed or disclosed the other income as per point no.6 of the affidavit like rent, interest, share debentures, FDRs, Mutual Funds, Stock Agriculture or Income from other sources. He has also not filed his statements of bank account. The ITRs filed by the revisionist are of irrelevant period in order to conceal his real income which cannot be relied upon. (iv). ITRs of the opposite party no. 2 which has been filed by the revisionist as Annexure No.3 to the present revision, which was for the Assessment Year 2019-2020, whereby the gross income of the opposite party no. 2 was shown to be Rs. 3,09,772/- per year, was exactly not filed by opposite party no.2 but the same was filed by the revisionist himself, who also had the password of ITR filing and the number which was linked to AADHAR and PAN card of the opposite party no. 2 and the said phone number and password was in his possession till august 2022. That fact is evident from 14 th and 15th lines of his cross-examination while saying ^^fjfrdk }kjk tks eksckby uacj ;wt+ fd;k tkrk Fkk og esjs ikl Fkk ftlls eSaus OTP [kksy dj ns[kk^^- (v). In the cross-examination, the revisionist has stated that he lives with his mother and father and he do not know as to from which date he is the Director of the Company. In line no. 14 of his cross- examination, he has stated that he sign anywhere upon the direction of his parents. The finances of the company of which he is the director are being looked into by his father. On page no. In line no. 14 of his cross- examination, he has stated that he sign anywhere upon the direction of his parents. The finances of the company of which he is the director are being looked into by his father. On page no. 90 (of revision) he has stated that he has no idea whether he has any share in the company or not. At page-91 of the paper book, after seeing his affidavit of assets and liabilities, which is paper no. 17/2 before the trial court, he admitted that he is an income tax payee and in subsequent lines, he has stated that he has filed his ITR at the time of separation and also at the time of filing the instant application under section 125 Cr.P.C. However, he has not filed the balance sheets of his company. From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that he has deliberately concealed his income. The opposite party no. 2 has filed salaries of the directors of the company including the revisionist and his father along with short counter affidavit from which it is clear that on the one hand, when the company was in loss, the salary of the revisionist would decrease and on the other hand, the salary of his father, who was also one of the director of the company, would increase i.e. from Rs.9,00,000/- per annum to Rs. 12,00,000/- per annum. From the list of depositors of Rakshit Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd, which is at page no. 123 of the short counter, it is clear that the revisionist to save him from the tax liability and to keep the court in dark has nowhere shown that he is the main boss "Gaurav Gupta HUF" which had opening balance of Rs. 13,98,277/- as on 1 st March, 2023 and the interest on the same was deliberately concealed. From the document enclosed along with the short counter affidavit where there is a list of amount received from Director or Relative of Director as on date 31-03-2023. The opening amount of the revisionist and the company was Rs.36,57,530/- and in the same financial year, he has deposited Rs. 67,55,000/- in the company in which he earned an interest of Rs. 3,22,630/-. (vi). If it is accepted that his annual income was Rs. 2,40,000/-, then how had he deposited Rs. 67,55,000/- in the financial year 2023. The opening amount of the revisionist and the company was Rs.36,57,530/- and in the same financial year, he has deposited Rs. 67,55,000/- in the company in which he earned an interest of Rs. 3,22,630/-. (vi). If it is accepted that his annual income was Rs. 2,40,000/-, then how had he deposited Rs. 67,55,000/- in the financial year 2023. On a simple calculation of movable assets of the revisionist and his company, he has capital of around Rs. 1 crore and on calculation of simple rate of interest at Rs. 7.5% without including the capital of the revisionist, he can earn interest of Rs. 7,50,000/- per year. Apart from these movable assets, the revisionist has 104000 shares in the company at NAV of Rs. 10/- each. Thus, his total shares in the company is amounting to Rs. 10,40,000/-. On basis of his shares, apart from salary and various benefits, as available to a director, he is entitled to get profit of 5% in the company. Thus, from all aspects it is evident that the total income of the revisionist is around Rs. 16,00,000/- per annum. Even otherwise, the revisionist who is main boss of Gaurav Gupta HUF i.e. “Karta” in which his income is around Rs. 11,00,000/- per annum. Thus, his total income being Rs. 27,00,000/- per annum and Rs. 2,25,000/- per month. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered all aspect of the matter after deeper scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence led before it. Since the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not committed any error in the eyes of law, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of record including the impugned judgment. 9. Qua the relationship between the revisionist and opposite party nos. 2 and 3, since before the trial court as well as before this Court, it is admitted on behalf of the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his real daughter, therefore, this Court is not required to discuss issue no.1 any more. 10. 2 and 3, since before the trial court as well as before this Court, it is admitted on behalf of the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife and opposite party no.3 is his real daughter, therefore, this Court is not required to discuss issue no.1 any more. 10. Insofar as the separate living of opposite party no.2 from her husband i.e. revisionist is concerned, this Court may record that the trial court while deciding the said issue under the impugned judgment has considered the statements of opposite party no.2 by recording that after marriage when the opposite party no.2 reached her matrimonial house, she was taunted for not bringing a car as dowry and also she was subjected to tortured and thereafter she was suffering from mental stress. It is further recorded that after returning from honeymoon, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 again started demand of a car as dowry and thereafter she was subjected to intense mental and physical torture continuously. It is then recorded that when opposite party no.2 became pregnant, she was asked to undergo a fetal sex determination test and when she protested, she was forced to stay at her parents' house. For delivery of child, she was sent to her parents' home on 13 th May, 2020. The trial court has recorded that since during cross-examination, opposite party no.2 as P.W.1 was not cross-examined on the aforesaid statements on behalf of the revisionist, therefore, trial court has opined that it has been fully established by opposite party no.2 that she is living separately from her husband i.e. revisionist along with her daughter for sufficient reasons. 11. Since the trial court has recorded categorical finding on that issue and also the revisionist has not cross-examined the opposite party no.2 as P.W.1 about the allegations made by her during the course of trial, therefore, this Court is in full agreement with the finding recorded by the trial court on the aforesaid issue. 12. Qua the monthly income of the opposite party no.2, this Court may further record that the trial court under the impugned judgment while dealing with the said issue has recorded that the opposite party no.2 has admitted in the cross-examination that before marriage she used to work at two places and from said jobs, she used to earn approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. 30,000/- per month. In the cross- examination, opposite party no.2 has stated that she left the job, which was doing in Gulmohar School after marriage and before delivery but after delivery she left her both jobs. In the cross- examination, opposite party no.2 has done B.Com and Interior Designing degree courses. However, she has stated that presently she is unable to work due to caring of her child even though she is highly educated and capable of supporting herself. The trial court has further recorded that the revisionist has failed to prove that the opposite party no. 2 is presently working. The revisionist has not produced any evidence that she is capable for supporting herself. 13. The trial court, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha Vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in AIR 2015 SC 554 wherein it has been observed that merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be ground to reject her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has opined that if the opposite party no.2 is doing some petty job to earn her livelihood, it cannot be said that she is capable of supporting herself. The trial court has also observed that in the affidavit filed in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra), the opposite party no.2 has mentioned herself as house wife. The opposite party no.2 is not presently earning any income. The revisionist has also not made any statement or given any evidence that the opposite party no.2 is engaged in any work. Opposite party no.2 is unable to support herself, therefore, the revisionist has moral and legal obligation to provide adequate support to her wife i.e. opposite party no.2. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has come to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 is not capable to maintain herself and her daughter. 14. Since the points with regard to monthly incomes of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 are dependent upon each other, therefore, this Court shall decide the same altogether after noticing the finding of the trial courts on both the points. 15. Now this Court comes to the monthly income of the revisionist. 14. Since the points with regard to monthly incomes of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 are dependent upon each other, therefore, this Court shall decide the same altogether after noticing the finding of the trial courts on both the points. 15. Now this Court comes to the monthly income of the revisionist. The trial court while deciding the said issue has recorded that as per the version of opposite party no.2 the revisionist is a director in Rakshit Engineering Works and qua the income of the revisionist opposite party no.2 has also produced Forms 5/8, 5/25, 5/21, and 5/39. On the other hand, the revisionist in his affidavit has stated that he is a director and his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month. The revisionist has also not provided details of his assets. He is an income tax payer and has misrepresented his income. The revisionist has filed balance sheets of the company. According to Form No. 50/12, his salary is Rs. 2,40,000/-, and in the year 2020, his salary was Rs. 6 lakh per year. The assets of the company has increased, as is evident from Forms No. 50/80 and 50/67. The revisionist stated that his income depends on shares of the company. 16. The trial court has further recorded that the revisionist has filed the income tax details for the year 2022-2023 and year 2023- 2024 from List 46, according to which, his salary is approximately Rs. 4,86,630/- per year. The revisionist has admitted in his cross- examination that his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month. He submitted a CA certificate in this regard but the C.A. does not issue any income certificate. The revisionist should have submitted his company's income certificate. The documents filed by the opposite party no.2 clearly disclose that the salary of the revisionist was never Rs. 20,000/- per month, nor is it presently. 17. The trial court has again recorded that the income tax returns filed by the revisionist, as per Schedule 46, prove his income. The forms produced by opposite party no.2 are for the year 2022. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has recorded that since the revisionist is a taxpayer and a director in Rakshit Engineering, so it is clear that he is able to provide maintenance. The forms produced by opposite party no.2 are for the year 2022. On the basis of such finding, the trial court has recorded that since the revisionist is a taxpayer and a director in Rakshit Engineering, so it is clear that he is able to provide maintenance. The revisionist has also not produced any evidence to contradict the evidence produced by opposite party no.2 regarding his income. He has also not provided any explanations regarding his income and expenses. It is clear that the revisionist has attempted to conceal his income and is capable to support his wife and also the opposite party no.2 has successfully proven this point. 18. The trial court after relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 2025 and Bhuvan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena & Others reported in 2014 CRLJ 3979 and also Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai , reported (2008) 2 SCC, 316, has opined that the wife has the right to live the same standard of living as was living with her husband. 19. On the basis of aforesaid findings and the laws laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to above, the trial court has opined that since the revisionist has not produced any documentary evidence regarding the income of the opposite party no.2, she appears to have no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself, therefore, she is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband i.e. revisionist. On the basis of such findings, the trial court has passed the impugned judgment while deciding the aforesaid two points qua the monthly incomes of the revisionist and opposite party no.2.. 20. From the deeper scrutiny of the findings recorded by the trial court on both the points, it may be noted that it is admitted position that opposite party no.2 is, having B.Com and Interior Designing degree courses, is a highly qualified lady and also before delivery of her daughter, she was working at two places and from where she was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and except the income tax return of the financial year 2019-2020 of opposite party no.2 which has been produced before the trial court by the revisionist, wherein gross income of the opposite party no.2 was Rs. 30,000/- per month and except the income tax return of the financial year 2019-2020 of opposite party no.2 which has been produced before the trial court by the revisionist, wherein gross income of the opposite party no.2 was Rs. 3,09,772/- per year, no other documentary evidence has been produced by the revisionist before the trial court from which it is established that presently the opposite party no.2 has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. Even otherwise, it was claimed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that the Income Tax Return of the financial year for 2019-2020 was filed by the revisionist and not by opposite party no.2 herself. Since the mobile of opposite party no.2 was used by the revisionist also through which the opposite party no.2 had filed the said income tax return for the reasons best known to him. The revisionist has admitted in his cross-examination that he used the mobile phone of the opposite party no.2 and has stated that the same was having in his possession on which he saw the OTP. 21. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Shamima Farooqui and Bhuvan Mohan Singh (Supras) relied upon by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has opined that the concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". 22. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". 22. Similarly in the case of Chaturbhuj (Supra) which has also been relied upon by the trial court under the impugned judgment has held that the object of the provisions like Section 125 Cr.P.C. being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate or the Court has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. T he needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments. (Emphasis added) 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) has framed criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, which are quoted 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. T he 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 v. Akanksha Jain MANU/SC/0355/2017 : (2017) 15 SCC 801 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain MANU/SC/0355/2017 : (2017) 15 SCC 801 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. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity o f 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 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. 99. 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition of laws as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the opinion that it is no undisputed position that the revisionist has failed to produce any evidence either before the trial court or before this Court that at present she has any source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. Even if it is presumed that she being a highly qualified lady may somehow earn some money, she cannot be deprived of the maintenance allowance as she was living with her husband at her matrimonial house. 25. This Court also agrees with the finding and opinion of the trial court that the revisionist has sufficient means to maintain his wife and children. Any person like the revisionist has not come before the trial court as well as this Court with clean hands. The trial court has specifically recorded under the impugned judgment that for escaping to give maintenance allowance, he has attempted to conceal his income. He has deliberately not filed the relevant documents before the trial court as well as before this Court regarding total income, total assets, loss and profit as well as balance-sheets of the company, where he, his father and mother are the directors. 26. The trial court has also recorded that the documents produced by opposite party no.2 regarding balance-sheets of the company and salary slips of father and mother of the revisionist before the trial court have not been controverted by the revisionist. The trial court has again recorded that in the affidavit filed by the revisionist before the trial court in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra) he has concealed his real income. 27. From perusal of the documents produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court as well as before this Court, it is surprising to note that in a company, where the son i.e. revisionist, his father and mother are directors and when the company is in loss, then the salary of the father and mother increases but that of the son decreases. The aforesaid acts shows that the revisionist has deliberately done all this to avoid giving maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter. 28. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Chander Prakash Bodhraj VS. Shila Rani Chander Prakash reported in 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52/ AIR 1968 Del 174 has opined thus: "An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him." (Emphasis supplied) 29. On the deeper scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, materials and evidence available on record and the impugned judgment as well as after huge deliberations as above, this Court finds that the trial court has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and awarding Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 towards monthly maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the instant application. 30. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.