HARI OM MAHESHWARI Vs. USHA MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed an order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in an appeal preferred by him against the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which, the interim application for maintenance filed by the respondent, wife of the petitioner, under Section 125 Cr.PC was disposed of by awarding maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application, till further orders. The learned ASJ disposed of the appeal of the petitioner by modifying the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing that the respondent would be entitled to maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month only instead of Rs.12,000/- per month. It was further directed that the said order would be effective from the date of the petition till the date of decision of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.PC.

(2.) The petitioner, who appears in person, states that the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and is at the stage of recording the cross-examination of the respondent.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever from him as the parties have been living separately since the year 1989 and that she has other sources of income by way of private tuitions that she has been taking since the year 1996. A perusal of the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shows that the aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner was duly taken note of in para 15 and thereafter, turned down. Maintaining a bank account by the respondent cannot by itself establish that she is earning any income to maintain herself independently. Similarly, holding of a PAN card by the respondent is also not an indicator in that direction. The petitioner has not placed any material document on the record to establish that the respondent is earning any amount by taking tuitions and, therefore, she is dis-entitled from claiming maintenance from him. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore rejected.