SUBHASH CHAND Vs. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition under Ss. 397/401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter 'Cr.P.C.'] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking setting aside of the order dtd. 25/4/2024 [hereafter 'the impugned order'] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereafter 'Family Court'] in MT No. 221/2017.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 13/4/2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was aged about 30 years and respondent no. 1 was aged about 18 years. The marriage was duly consummated and two children i.e., one son and one daughter (respondents nos. 2 and 3) were born out of the said wedlock. The respondent no. 1 had alleged that her parents had spent Rs.15.00 lakhs at the time of marriage; however, from the very beginning of the matrimonial life, she was not provided with basic amenities of life. It is alleged that the petitioner, his parents, sister and brother-in-law used to taunt respondent no. 1 for bringing only a meagre amount as dowry, and for that reason, they had also mercilessly beaten up respondent no. 1. It is also alleged that the said incident was informed by respondent no. 1 to her parents and resultantly, the parents of respondent no. 1 had called biradari panchayat on various occasions, in which the matter had initially been settled. However, in the year 2011, the respondent no. 1 was thrown out of her matrimonial home along with her children by the petitioner, upon being instigated by his family members and since then, the parties have been residing separately.

(3.) The respondent no. 1 had filed an application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the children, wherein she had averred that the petitioner was earning more than Rs.2.00 lakhs per month from his own business of general store as well as the stationary shop. It was also averred that the petitioner was having property in his name and also having rental income from various properties including the ancestral property. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 had prayed that the petitioner herein be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000.00 per month to her, and Rs.10,000.00 per month each to the two children.