YUDHISHTER BHUTANI Vs. SHALINI BHUTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YUDHISHTER Bhutani -revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against Shalini Bhutani, Garvit Bhutani and Tanishq Bhutani challenging the judgment dated 6.5.2014 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioner married respondent No. 1 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies at Gurgaon in the year 1998. Out of the wedlock, two sons, namely, Garvit Bhutani and Tanishq Bhutani (respondents No. 2 and 3) were born in the year 1999 and 2002 respectively. As the relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 became strained, they started living separately from November 2011. It is stated here that the respondents are staying in the matrimonial home, whereas the petitioner was staying in the same house on another floor along with his brother. However, later on he shifted and is now staying alone. It is stated that respondent No. 1 used to leave the house and started living in Guest Houses in Gurgaon without caring about her children. The petitioner even bought a separate house after taking loan from the bank to live with his wife and children, but respondent No. 1 never wanted to stay with him. The respondents filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on 19.10.2012. In the said petition, respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner is the owner of a factory and has more than one house. They further stated that the petitioner is running an industrial unit and has employed over 25 workmen and is earning over Rs. 2 Lacs per month.

(3.) AT the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that firstly, it is not the petitioner, who threw away the respondents. Rather, the respondents are staying in the matrimonial house and the petitioner is living separately. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the talk of compromise, approximately an amount of Rs. 1.5 Lacs has already been paid to respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No. 1 is earning sufficient income and the amount granted to the respondents is excessive and respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance. He also contended that the income of the petitioner as per the Income -tax return also comes to average of less than Rs. 25,000/ - per month.