SH.BHAGWAN DASS Vs. POONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside/modification of the judgment dtd. 31/8/2020 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of 3000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 with effect from 12/4/2010 till 31/12/2017, then at the rate of 4500/- per month with effect from January 2018 till 31/7/2020 and then at the rate of 10,000/- per month with effect from 1/8/2020 till her life time or she gets remarried after divorce from the petitioner. The petitioner was further directed to pay an amount of 4000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 12/4/2010 till 31/12/2017, then at the rate of 4500/- per month with effect from 1/1/2018 till 31/7/2020 and then at the rate of 6000/- per month with effect from 1/8/2020 till the date of majority of this child i.e. 8/11/2020. The petitioner was further directed to pay an amount of 3000/- per month to the respondent No. 3 with effect from 12/4/2010 till 31/12/2017, then at the rate of 4500/- per month with effect from 1/1/2018 till 31/7/2020 and then at the rate of 6000/- per month with effect from 1/8/2020 till the date of attaining majority by the child. The petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of 7500/- to each of the three respondents as litigation expenses for the period of litigation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had clearly stated and filed a reply stating that he was able to earn 4000/- per month at the time of filing reply to the petition and presently, he was earning 16,000/- per month and thus, he was not in a position to pay the amount directed vide impugned order as the same was beyond his income and assets. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner till 31/12/2017 at 20,000/- per month and 27,000/- per month till 31/7/2020 and since 1/8/2020, the present income was assessed at 35,000/- per month.

(3.) The petitioner did not file his bank statement before the Family Court stating that he was not depositing his income in the bank. Claim of the petitioner in his affidavit of income, assets and expenditure was that he was working as a freelance worker working at Karol Bagh, New Delhi, however, no other particulars were given. In his cross examination, the petitioner denied that he was running a factory of rice bags and shoes at D-290, Madipur, Delhi and claimed that he used to repair old shoes by visiting different factories and on further cross examination, stated that he did not remember the names of those factories. The petitioner claimed that he resided at D-290, Madipur, Delhi and that the house belonged to his mother but on further cross examination, he admitted that it was he who sold this house to his mother. However, he did not remember the year when this house was sold by him to his mother.