MANIK CHOPRA Vs. PRIYANKA CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 29.01.2016 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No. 6/2015 whereby order dated 05.11.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting interim maintenance to the respondent @ Rs. 60,000/- per month was upheld. Petition is contested by the respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. No material has emerged to find out if despite having professional qualification, the respondent is presently earning any income. It has come on record that earlier the respondent was employed with Little Millennium School situated near her matrimonial home. After separation, she has started living with her parents at Noida. Due to long distance between her residence and place of employment, she has given up the said job. Apparently, the respondent has no independent source of income at present.

(3.) The Trial Court assessed the income of the petitioner in between Rs. 1.5 lac to Rs. 2 lacs per month. Record reveals that no cogent documents have been placed by the respondent to show if the petitioner has any specific income from any particular source of income in his individual capacity. The Trial Court has taken into consideration various transactions in his bank account to infer that the income disclosed by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per month due to his employment with Sony Peripherals is unbelievable and the petitioner has suppressed the real and correct income being earned by him. It is further inferred that the petitioner is working with his father in firm 'Allianz Estate' and 'Allianz Interior Decorators' and has substantial income which has not been disclosed. The petitioner also did not explain receipt of income from interest from mutual funds in his account.