SATISH KUMAR DAHIYA Vs. SHIVANI DAHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 r/w Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order dtd. 30/7/2016 passed by the Family Court, North-West, Rohini in MT No.56344/16 titled as 'Shivani Dahiya and Anr. v. Satish Kumar Dahiya". The impugned judgment disposed of the application for interim maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.1/wife where she sought maintenance of Rs.50,000.00 per month and Rs.55,000.00 towards litigation expenses.

(2.) Respondent No.1/wife was married to the petitioner/husband on 20/8/2001 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. One male child was born out of the said wedlock on 20/6/2002 who is in the care and custody of respondent No.1/wife. It was stated inter alia in the petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. that the father of the wife purchased the entire third floor portion of the property bearing No. WZ-324E, Rani Bagh, Delhi and a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the wife and, therefore, was treated as a significant article of dowry. Aside from this, various articles were presented by the wife's parents to the husband. A complaint was filed by the wife before CAW Cell and the list of articles were appended therein. Allegations of cruelty by the husband and various other incidents of marital discord and misbehavior against the husband's family were alleged in the said complaint. She stated that she left her matrimonial home and is residing with her parents along with the minor son. In these circumstances, maintenance was claimed.

(3.) The husband filed a written statement stating that the complaint was false and frivolous and the wife had herself deserted the petitioner and no incidents, as alleged, had taken place. Besides, there was a denial that the father of the wife had purchased the premises in question at Rani Bagh; instead it was the husband who had purchased the said floor in favour of the wife. Allegations of cruelty and quarrelling were denied by the husband. As regards his financial position, the husband stated that he was not a financier earning Rs.1.00 Lac per month, as contended by the wife. Instead, he was working with his brother Dalbir Rana on a salary of Rs.10,000.00 per month as a field boy. Affidavit of income and assets were filed by both the husband and wife.