RAVISH KASHYAP Vs. SWATI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Ravish Kashyap to impugn the legality and correctness of an order dated 11.12.2014 of learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, whereby he was directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondents No.1 & 2, respectively. The revision petition is contested by the respondents.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. It is a matter of record that in the divorce proceedings pending between the parties, by an order dated 28.10.2013, learned Judge, Family Courts, had granted interim maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month in all to the respondents under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act. Earlier during counseling process, temporary settlement was arrived at between the parties. The petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent wife for four months to meet her expenses of delivery. Apparently, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month which the petitioner had agreed to pay was for a limited period and to meet the expenses incurred by respondent No.1 at the time of delivery. Respondents' case is that the petitioner is working as Regional Manager in M/s. Horizons Lamkraft Pvt. Ltd. at D-4, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and his monthly income is Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner has claimed that he is working as Sales Executive with Raj Kamal Plywood Pvt. Ltd. and his monthly salary is Rs. 9,000/- per month. Claim of the respondents is based only upon a 'visiting card' where the petitioner has shown to be the Regional Manager of the said concern. The respondents have not placed on record any salary certificate to show if the income of the petitioner is Rs. 1 lac per month or so as alleged. This aspect was considered by the Family Court dealing with divorce petition. The petitioner, on the other hand, has placed on record the photocopy of the salary certificate issued by Raj Kamal Plywood Pvt. Ld. showing his monthly salary Rs. 9,000/-.

(3.) At the time of grant of bail in case FIR No.345/12 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs in cash to the complainant without prejudice. Similarly, the complainant received Rs. 3.25 lacs when co-accused Vibha Jha @ Pinky was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on December 20, 2013.