PARVEEN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. BABITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed seeking to challenge order dtd. 26/5/2016 passed by District Judge (Family Court), Karnal, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000.00 per month as maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') to the respondents.

(2.) In brief the facts are, a marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 21/4/2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Karnal. The complainant became pregnant and gave birth to a girl child. FIR No. 40 dtd. 16/11/2015 was registered under Ss. 323, 377, 498-A, 406 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC by the complainant against her husband and his family members alleging demand of dowry, cruelty harassment, physical abuse and illicit relations of her husband with other women. The respondent/complainant approached the court seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter under Sec. 125 of the Code on the ground that she was not in a position to maintain herself. It was alleged that her husband, the petitioner herein, was working as a Chemical Engineer with Avinex Software (P) Ltd. in Jaipur and earning Rs.1,25,000.00 per month and she claimed Rs.50,000.00 as maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The petition was contested and after hearing the parties and relying upon case law, the District Judge (Family Court), Karnal, allowed interim maintenance of Rs.20,000.00 per month payable from the date of the petition. The District Judge took the income of the petitioner to be Rs.53,233.00 per month. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Vikram Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of of the petitioner, contends that the District Judge has erred while awarding of maintenance at Rs.20,000.00 per month. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any maintenance as she left the matrimonial home on her own accord and launched false and frivolous F.I.R against him and his family members. It is also argued that the complainant herself is an engineer working in a private firm and, therefore, is capable of sustaining herself and her minor daughter. It is also argued that on account of a false FIR being registered against the petitioner, he was arrested which led to his services being terminated on 18/11/2015 itself and therefore the interim maintenance as assessed is not sustainable.