AMIT Vs. NAMITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 18/12/2019, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Indore, in MJCR No.1009/2014, whereby the learned Principal Judge has partly allowed the application filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C by awarding total maintenance of Rs.40,000.00 per months ( i.e. Rs.25,000.00 per month in favour of the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.15,000.00 in favour of respondent No. 2/daughter).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is a working lady and capable to maintain herself. She has a career in modeling and she had also acted in some movies as well as serials and is presently running a dance class. She is well qualified and is having M.Com. degree. She herself went to her matrimonial home. Petitioner is ready to keep the respondent and at the time of her delivery the petitioner has transferred Rs.50,000.00 in the respondent father's account. She has not filed any report for cruelty, physical or mental assault. For the payment of maintenance amount, the petitioner has taken loan from the bank. The petitioner is an employee in a private bank. His father and brother are depending on him. The maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is causing extreme financial hardships on the applicant. The learned Family Court without appreciating the evidence, wrongly awarded the maintenance of Rs.25000.00 in favour of respondent No. 1/wife hence, it may be reduced to the extent of Rs.10,000.00. Further, in support of her contentions counsel placed reliance in the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, delivered on 5/9/2016, Smt. Archana Gupta and Antoher Vs. Shri Rajeev Gupta and another, passed on 18/11/2009, passed by Uttrakhand High Court. and also on a judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. E. Shanthi Vs. Dr. H.K. Vasudev AIR 2005 Karnataka 417.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove that the respondent is earning. The Petitioner is only exhibited newspaper clippings to show that the Respondent is working. In para No. 36 of the impugned order the Petitioner has himself accepted that such newspaper clippings are of the year 1997, 1999 and 2001 and that he is unaware that such films/serials are released or not. He has also made assertion of her working, yet is unaware of where she is working right now. In this regard, he has placed reliance in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, that newspaper articles are statement of fact contained in a newspaper and are merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible So far as the contention regarding financial hardship to the petitioner to look after his family members is concerned, the petitioner himself admitted in para No. 7 of his cross-examination that he earns an amount of Rs.1,26,684.00 per month as he is working as senior manager in HDFC Bank, Kota where he says in his parent's own house. His father also owns a house in NRC colony which was accepted by the petitioner in para No. 8 of his cross-examination. He also accepted in para NO. 10 of his cross-examiation that he owns a house in Mumbai and that he has created an FD in his own name of Rs.3,00,000.00 in para No. 19 of his cross-examination. His brother is a body builder and earns for himself and he also runs a private school in Kota as is apparent from his social media profile on linkdin. As per para No.22 of cross-examination of the petitioner, he has admitted that he has swift desire car and that his father owns an Etios car. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance in the finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Walia Vs. Monica Uppal, 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677. Hence, the Family Court after considering all the aspects and perspectives, passed the order of awarding maintenance, in favour of respondents. Therefore, the request of petitioner to modify the order of maintenance is required to be rejected.