PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. POOJA ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-husband seeks setting aside of order dtd. 21/10/2023 [hereafter 'impugned order'], passed by the learned Family Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Celhi [hereafter 'Family Court'] in MT. Case No. 287/2022.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 12/1/2016 and a child was born out of the wedlock, who is currently in the custody of the respondent (wife), aged about six years. The parties have been living separately since July 2017. The respondent-wife had alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner - husband, who is a practicing advocate. The respondent was earlier employed as a guest teacher with the Delhi Government, but became unemployed upon the termination of her contractual employment on 8/12/2022. The respondent had filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter 'Cr.P.C.'] seeking maintenance, and the learned Family Court, had vide impugned order dtd. 21/10/2023, directed the petitioner herein to pay a monthly interim maintenance of ?7,500 each to the child and to the respondent. However, since the respondent was admittedly earning a notional income equivalent to the petitioner until December, 2022 and was equally responsible for the child's upkeep, no maintenance was awarded for the period prior to January, 2023. Thus, the petitioner was made liable to pay arrears from January, 2023 onwards until further orders.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent-wife solely to harass and humiliate the petitioner and in retaliation to an earlier order passed in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is argued that the petitioner is already under mental stress due to this litigation and is now suffering from ailments requiring treatment, further exacerbated by financial strain. The petitioner, a practicing advocate at District Court Jind, Haryana, earns only ?10,000 -?15,000 per month and supports his 72-year-old mother. In contrast, the respondent-wife is highly educated (M.A.,B.Ed., etc.) and was working as a teacher, earning ?40,000 -?45,000 per month, including tuition work. Her income, as reflected in her ITRs and bank statements with high-value transactions, shows that she is financially better placed and capable of maintaining herself and the minor child. It is also argued that the learned Family Court erred in not considering that the respondent left the matrimonial home on her own volition and did not rejoin the petitioner despite a court order, and the petitioner remains willing to reside with the respondent and minor child. Additionally, major expenses for the child's education are borne by the Delhi Government, including tuition fees, books, and other facilities. Therefore, the maintenance awarded is excessive and based on an incorrect estimation of the petitioner's income, while the respondent's actual earnings were not assessed with the same scrutiny. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the respondent was earlier employed as a teacher and was earning ?30,000/- and her bank account statement adequately reflects the same. He therefore states that the respondent is capable of earning and has filed the present case to harass the petitioner. He argues that the petitioner is a practising advocate with a practice of 15 years in Haryana, however, he is earning only ?10,000/- to ?15,000/- per month. He therefore states that since the respondent is capable of earning, she is not entitled for maintenance. It is contended that the petitioner, already struggling financially and emotionally, is in no position to comply with the maintenance order, and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.