ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, aggrieved from order dated 04-09-2019 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 37/2016, titled as “ Smt. Seema and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal ”, under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. 2. By impugned order under Section 125 of CrPC, learned Family Court has directed present petitioner Mukesh Kumar to pay Rs. 10,000 per month to Respondent–Applicant No. 1 Seema and Rs. 5,000 per month to Respondent–Applicant No. 2 Manan Gupta, (minor son) totalling Rs. 15,000 per month from 27-01-2016 (filing of application), as maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition, submitted that the petitioner solemnized marriage with Respondent No. 1 on 29-04-2004 and out of wedlock, Respondent No. 1 gave birth to a male child, (Master Manan), on 18-01-2006. He further submitted that Respondent No. 1, dissatisfied due to her own issues, has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started to live separately from the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has tried to pacify the ego and aspirations of Respondent No. 1 but his efforts remained unsuccessful. He further referred to the proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 and submitted that she filed unnecessary charges alleging demand of dowry by the petitioner and also filed a divorce petition on false grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also submitted that the petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 to reside with him, but without any valid reason she is residing separately, which is sufficient to draw a conclusion that Respondent No. 1 has voluntarily withdrawn from marital ties. 4. Learned counsel further referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the father of the petitioner runs his own business in the name of M/s Ganpati Kitchenware but the petitioner is working as private labour, earning Rs. 6,000 per month, which is evident from the income tax return(s) submitted by him. He also submitted that Respondent No. 1 is earning her livelihood by a private job and also by giving private tutions. He further referred to alleged false evidence given by Respondent No. 1 and submitted that she has concealed the material fact about her income and source of livelihood, as she has not filed any affidavit or income certificate. He also submitted that Respondent No. 1 is earning her livelihood by a private job and also by giving private tutions. He further referred to alleged false evidence given by Respondent No. 1 and submitted that she has concealed the material fact about her income and source of livelihood, as she has not filed any affidavit or income certificate. He further submitted that Respondent No. 2 has attained adulthood during pendency of the revision petition; therefore, he is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. He also referred to erroneous determination of maintenance by the trial court and submitted that cumulative determination of Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance is far beyond the monthly income of the petitioner, and it is not possible for him to pay this amount to the respondents. He submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the ITR submitted by the petitioner is a conclusive document to determine his income. He also submitted that the business referred to by Respondent No. 1 belongs to the father of the petitioner and the petitioner has no share in the said business, therefore, the income of the petitioner’s father cannot be added for the purpose of calculating and determining maintenance. At last, he submitted that the principle of determination followed by the Family court is contrary to the established law and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents and submitted that the determination of maintenance is based on evidence of both the parties and the trial court has rightly determined the income. She further submitted that Respondent No. 1 was abandoned and rendered destitute by the petitioner. She also referred to the cruelty committed by the petitioner and submitted that it is impossible for Respondent No. 1 to live with the present petitioner. She also submitted that if Respondent No. 2 has attained majority, then the petitioner has an option to file an application for alteration under Section 127 of CrPC (corresponding provision Section 146 of BNSS ). She further submitted that Respondent No. 1 appeared as a witness before the trial court and the evidence clearly suggests that not a single question was asked in cross-examination regarding her livelihood or earnings through tuition to private students. She further submitted that Respondent No. 1 appeared as a witness before the trial court and the evidence clearly suggests that not a single question was asked in cross-examination regarding her livelihood or earnings through tuition to private students. She also submitted that the petitioner has fabricated income tax returns so that he is not required to pay maintenance to the respondents. She referred to the biodata of the petitioner shared before the marriage and submitted that as per the biodata the petitioner was working as a wholesaler and earning more than Rs. 2,50,000 per month. She also submitted that the petitioner and his family possess several properties in their ownership and possession, which is sufficient to draw a conclusion about the financial condition of the present petitioner. At last, she submitted that the maintenance amount cannot be reduced on the basis of income tax returns filed after the dispute between the parties. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The material on record clearly indicates that, aggrieved from order dated 06-05-2024 in D.B. CMA No. 206/2018 passed by this Court, present petitioner has filed SLP (Civil) No. 14740/2024 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the petitioner Mukesh Kumar Agarwal to clear the arrears, if any, in terms of the order passed by the Family Court/Trial Court. In pursuance to the order, the petitioner has deposited a demand draft of Rs.14,71,740/- and received by Respondent No. 1 on 08-05-2025. 8. Admittedly, petitioner and Respondent No. 1 solemnized their marriage on 29-04-2004 and out of their wedlock, Respondent No. 2 Manan Gupta was born on 18-01-2006. The material further indicates that the present petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same was dismissed on 13-12-2017 by learned Family Court No. 3, Jaipur as Case No. 360/2016. Aggrieved, petitioner filed D.B. CMA No. 206/2018, but the same was also dismissed. The present petitioner preferred a SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed in view of pre-emptive order dated 28-02-2025. 9. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance to a wife, minor child and parents, if they are unable to maintain themselves. Maintenance can be denied, if the wife lives in adultery or refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, or lives separately by mutual consent. 9. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance to a wife, minor child and parents, if they are unable to maintain themselves. Maintenance can be denied, if the wife lives in adultery or refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, or lives separately by mutual consent. A son can claim maintenance until attaining majority i.e., 18 years, unless he is physically or mentally challenged and unable to maintain himself. Similarly, in Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324 , it was held that in the interest of justice and fair play, maintenance should be awarded from the date of application so that the applicant does not suffer due to judicial delays and her financial sustenance is not dependent on the pace of court proceedings. 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , (2008) 2 SCC 316 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that maintenance is a basic human right and should not be denied merely on technical grounds. Herein, the basic contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is earning Rs. 6,000 per month and in support of this submission he relied upon income tax returns from the years 2015–2018. Another contention is that Respondent No. 2 has attained adulthood. 11. The admitted facts clearly indicate that Respondent No. 2 Manan was born on 18-01-2006 and on 17-01-2024 he attained age of 18 years. The event of attaining adulthood occurred during pendency of the current petition, therefore, Respondent No. 2 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the date he attained adulthood. However, the order under challenge is from the year 2019, when Respondent No. 2 was minor. Therefore, we are considering only up to the extent of challenge made on the date of filing of the current revision petition. 12. The evidence on record clearly suggests that Respondent No. 1 is not earning any livelihood from any profession, including private tuition. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the argument of learned counsel for petitioner, hence, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner. Similarly, the minor son of Respondent No. 1 is also entitled to maintenance from the petitioner, who is his father and under an obligation to maintain him, atleast he attains adulthood. 13. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the argument of learned counsel for petitioner, hence, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner. Similarly, the minor son of Respondent No. 1 is also entitled to maintenance from the petitioner, who is his father and under an obligation to maintain him, atleast he attains adulthood. 13. The evidence on record suggests that Respondent No. 1 in her evidence alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, but her admission indicates that she has not filed any document or photograph to show that petitioner Mukesh is earning Rs. 2,50,000/- per month. The father of Respondent No. 1 was examined as PW-2 and his evidence has been considered wherein he alleged that the ITRs filed by the petitioner are false. Present petitioner was examined as DW-1 before the family court and he mentioned that his monthly income is Rs. 6,000 per month. The admission in cross-examination indicates that on the marriage card, names of two firms—Ganpati Kitchenware and Vinayak Kitchenware were mentioned and the petitioner explained that these firms belong to his father. The brother of petitioner, Dharmendra Bansal, also appeared as witness and his admission indicates that at the time of marriage, Mukesh was sitting at Ganpati Kitchenware. The admission also indicates that the address of Mukesh is same as that of the witness. He also admitted that there was a sales-tax raid on their shop Ganpati Kitchenware. It is also evident on record that the father of petitioner has not appeared as a witness to show that the firms claimed to be business of petitioner were actually not belonging to petitioner. 14. The principle of determination of quantum of maintenance is based on the needs of the claimant, family status, and standard of living. It also depends upon the financial status of the non- applicant. Interim maintenance is normally governed by principles determined in case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) , but final maintenance is based on evidence on record. Here, we have to consider that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent destitution and poverty among dependents by compelling responsible persons to fulfil their legal obligation. The duty of the court is to balance social justice with fairness, ensuring that maintenance is provided only where genuine need and neglect/refusal are established. 15. Here, we have to consider that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent destitution and poverty among dependents by compelling responsible persons to fulfil their legal obligation. The duty of the court is to balance social justice with fairness, ensuring that maintenance is provided only where genuine need and neglect/refusal are established. 15. The respondent has placed reliance upon income tax returns filed since 2015, but no document prior to 2015 is placed on record to show how much the petitioner was earning from 2004 to 2015. The defence of the petitioner is that the business belongs to his father and he is not working with his father but by a job, he is earning Rs. 6,000 per month. The petitioner is a young person and every young person has an aspiration to grow and earn more, but herein the stubborn attitude clearly indicates that the ITRs submitted by the petitioner are not the correct disclosure of his income. There is no reliable income record in favour of the petitioner. 16. Therefore, considering the principles of determination of maintenance, I am of the considered view that the Family court, after examining the evidence, has rightly determined the monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 5,000 to Respondent No. 2. Therefore, there is no ground for interference in the amount determined by the trial court. If the petitioner has any reason for deviation in the amount of maintenance, he is at liberty to file an application under Section 146 of BNSS for alteration in the maintenance allowance. 17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that Respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive maintenance only till attaining the age of 18 years, unless his case falls in the exceptions noticed hereinabove. 18. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 19. No order as to costs.