PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DEEPIKA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 397/ 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") seeking setting aside of order and judgment dtd. 31/7/2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 6834/2016 (MTNo.800/2014).

(2.) The instant petition has been filed in the aftermath of matrimonial discord between the parties and the brief background of the same is discussed hereinunder:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned Order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge is patently wrong, perverse and hence, liable to be set aside. Learned Additional Principal Judge failed to appreciate the evidence, other material on record and the provision under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned Order. It is submitted that the respondent was abundantly capable of maintaining herself and was earning sufficient income for the purpose, and the fact of her employment during the pendency of the case was also conceded by her in her cross-examination. Since, the respondent herself had sufficient means to maintain herself, the application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable at the first instance. It is submitted that the burden of proving the fact that the respondent had sufficient means was discharged when the respondent was cross-examined and it was established that she was employed, working and earning. Moreover, the respondent alleged that she was being maintained by her father and brother, however, during his cross-examination, the brother of the respondent Mr. Rajesh Juneja was not able to prove the case of the respondent that she was living with her parents and was being maintained by them. In fact, the respondent in her cross-examination on 9/9/2016 admitted that she was disowned by her father and was staying away from him. Hence, it is submitted that the onus of proving that the respondent did not have sufficient means to maintain herself was shifted upon her.