JYOTI Vs. RAJIV CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present revision petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dtd. 15/4/2017 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram and has sought enhancement/modification of the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner-wife had filed a petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the respondent husband. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 6/5/2011 and out of this wedlock, no child was born to them. The respondent was an alcoholic, used to harass, humiliate and illtreat the petitioner for want of dowry. Despite best efforts made by the petitioner, the respondent-husband and his family did not improve their behaviour and continued with their illegal demands. The petitioner was thrown out of the house on 23/6/2012 and since then, she had been residing at her parental home. She has no independent source of income. The respondent is graduate from IIT Kanpur and M.Tech. from Italy. He was employed with Sergi India, Gurgaon at the annual package of Rs.8.5 lakh and in addition thereto, he is earning Rs.3.5 lakh per annum from tuition work. His father is a Government Contractor, earning about Rs.6.00 lakh per annum. The respondent has deliberately and intentionally deserted the petitioner. He is legally bound to maintain her more particularly when there is no other independent source of income with her.

(3.) The relationship and qualification are not denied by the respondent. The respondent admitted that he is an IIT graduate, but did not have a job and was earning from tuition. His annual income was Rs.3.00 to 3.5 lakh during the months of July to January, whereas from February to June, he did not have much income. He has no concern with the work of his father as a contractor. He was employed with Sergi India Company Limited till March, 2013. Since he had availed loan, he has to pay EMI of Rs.25,964.00 per month. His business failed because of various complaints made by the petitioner against him. On the other hand, petitioner herself is running a Beauty Parlour in the name and style of Spark Beauty and SPA and is earning Rs.30,000.00 per month.