SUDARSHAN CHAWLA Vs. MAMTA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to challenge order dated 27.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa allowing interim maintenance to the respondents.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that a marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 17.01990, out of which wedlock three children were born. A dispute arose between them, which led respondent No.1-Mamta Rani, filing a petition under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the DV Act'). Respondent No.1 also preferred a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner Sudarshan Chawla on 13.07.2016 before the District Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, which is pending. She also got FIR No.703 dated 20.09.2016 registered under Section 323, 325, 498-A, 406, 506 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sirsa, which was cancelled by the police. In proceedings under the DV Act, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa passed the order dated 27.09.2016 allowing interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved against the said order, both petitioner-Sudarshan Chawla as well as respondent-Mamta Rani preferred their separate appeals which stood dismissed. Aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed seeking reduction of maintenance awarded.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein contends that the present petitioner is earning only Rs. 8000/- per month by running a small electricity shop and that he is living in a rented accommodation at Sirsa by paying a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. It is argued that carry home earning of the petitioner herein is around Rs. 5000/- which is not sufficient for his own expenses. Apart from arguing that respondent No.2 is highly qualified and she has a Ph.D. degree, it is submitted that she is giving tuition upto 10 + 2 standard students and earning approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is also argued that the petitioner's son namely Rajat (major) has done a diploma in software mobile repair and earning handsomely. It is also submitted that there is no proof available on the record, which would reflect that the petitioner herein has sufficient means to pay the amount so assessed or that he is earning Rs. 70,000/- per month by doing business of electronics or is in the business of finance.