VIRENDER TANWAR Vs. ANJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 19.12.2013 of learned Judge Family Courts, Dwarka, whereby he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent wife as maintenance. The petition is contested by the respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the income of the petitioner from his salary is Rs. 7,722/- per month. The impugned order directing him to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent cannot be sustained. Merely because of certain payments received occasionally for working 'overtime', it cannot be inferred that his salary has gone to Rs. 14,470/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent urges that the impugned order is based upon fair appreciation of the evidence and needs no intervention.

(3.) Admitted position is that earlier interim maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- per month was a consent order on the statement of the petitioner before the Court. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent claimed that the petitioner's total income from various sources to be to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month including Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary being working as 'Security Guard' in US Embassy. She, however, did not produce any document to substantiate her assertion. Contrary to that, the petitioner claimed that he was getting salary Rs. 7,722/- per month vide salary certificate Ex.RW-1/1. Both the parties examined themselves in evidence besides the petitioner producing RW-2 (Debashish Tewary), Senior Manager Finance. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the total income of the petitioner was Rs. 21,000/- per month and it was not reflected by him deliberately.