VIPUL JAIN Vs. RITU JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the husband against order dated 07.01.2015 passed by District Judge Family Court, Faridabad in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 was married to the petitioner on 26.11.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Faridabad. Two children namely Tanvi and Moksh took birth on 27.10.2003 and 09.02.2005 respectively. Presently the respondent No.1 along with childrens is living in the flat at Faridabad. Due to matrimonial dispute, parties could not pull on well, resulting in filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well as divorce petition. Appeal filed against judgment and decree of family Court is pending in High Court at the instance of husband. For the purposes of deciding, present revision petition background of matrimonial discord is not to be mentioned in detail. Family Court vide order dated 08.12.2011 granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/ - per month each in favour of the three persons i.e wife and both minor children from the date of filing of the application.

(3.) THE applicant wife and minor children adduced evidence for the purpose of grant of maintenance. Petitioner/husband also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence viz electricity bills, school fees, stationery slips of children and charges towards maintenance of society etc. The petitioner adduced income tax return for the year 2012 -13 (Exhibit RW -1) and for the year 2013 -14 (Exhibit RW -2). Though the total turn over of the company was Rs.12 crores, but the profit after deduction has been shown around Rs. 6 -7 lacs per annum. The factory set up by the petitioner is claimed to be in gestation, demanding an investment with no profit. The petitioner claims himself to be a partner to the extent of 50 per cent in the factory. Petitioner also claims that maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the tune of Rs.1 lac for all the three claimant is very exorbitant and is on the higher side. The petitioner while appearing as RW -2 has stated that in the year 2009 he was earning a monthly salary of Rs.90,000/ -. Thereafter in the year 2010, he started his own business. Now he is running two businesses i.e one is industry and another is a consultancy. The annual turn over of industry is Rs. 12 crores and is a partnership concern. The profit earnings of the company is stated to be around Rs. 6 -7 lacs per annum. The factory set up by the petitioner is under the name and style of Macro Auto Tech. The income tax return for the year 2012 -13 (Exhibit RW -1) and for the year 2013 -14 (Exhibit RW -2) were got exhibited in the statement of RW -1 which were duly objected to for mode of proof. Despite that, execution of these documents have not been proved on record by the petitioner.