DILIP SHARMA Vs. KRISHNA SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant, Dilip Sharma challenging order dated 13.08.2014 passed by Family Court, Ajmer (for short 'the Family Court') whereby the appellant -non -applicant has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/ - per month to Respondent No. 1 -wife and Rs. 1,500/ - per month to Respondent No. 2 -son, total Rs. 4,500/ - per month as interim maintenance from the date of order.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 02.12.2001 as per Hindu Customs and Rites at Ajmer. A son namely Piyush was born out of wedlock of the appellant and Respondent No. 1 on 09.08.2005. The appellant -non applicant has been granted a decree of judicial separation under the provision of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(for short 'the Act') on 22.09.2012 in Case No. 515/2011, Dilip v. Krishna. Thereafter, the respondents -applicants field an application No. 677/2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an application for interim maintenance dated 18.09.2013 stating therein that Respondent No. 1 is unemployed having no source of income and undertaking training, thus, dependent on her retired parents while her husband is working with daily newspaper "Punjab Kesri" at Ajmer, and earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - per month. Reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant on 25.07.2013 and reply to application for interim maintenance was filed on 20.11.2013 by the appellant denying the averments of the application and stating that Respondent No. 1 is employed in Baba Diagnostic Centre, Opposite Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer and earning a salary of Rs. 5,000/ - per month. It was also stated in the reply that the application for custody of son Piyush is pending before the Family Court, Ajmer. It was pleaded that earning of the appellant is only Rs. 4,500/ - per month, therefore, Respondent No. 1 is earning more than the appellant/non -applicant. The Family Court vide order dated 13.08.2014 directed the appellant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/ - per month to Respondent No. 2 from the date of order. Being aggrieved of the order dated 13.08.2014, the appellant has filed instant appeal before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is cryptic in nature and no reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the Family Court for granting interim maintenance. The impugned order is against the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as Respondent No. 1 -wife is having sufficient means of earning and is living separately by virtue of decree of judicial separation which was passed because of her attitude, refusal of co -habit or restore the matrimonial life on the ground of free/unchecked living life style as well as forcing her husband to leave Ajmer and reside at Delhi where she was in employment with a private firm prior to her marriage and continued to reside at Delhi for about two years when her husband had already left Delhi for employment at Ajmer. Even after conciliation in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act on 07.02.2009, the respondent applicant did not prefer to restore the matrimonial home because of her free/unchecked life style. It is argued that application for custody of minor son is pending before the Family Court as the respondent No. 1 cannot bring up the child rightly. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent No. 1 has sufficient means to maintain her out of the salary being paid by Baba Diagnostic Centre, Ajmer where she is employed at present. Respondent No. 1 is not entitled for maintenance or interim maintenance under the provisions of sub -section (1) and (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. which provide that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be, from her husband under this section, if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. It is, therefore, prayed that order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Family Court, granting interim maintenance to the respondents, may be quashed and set aside.