Madhu Sudan Soni v. Renu & Ors

ORDER %

31.07.2013 CRL.M.A.11278/2013(exemntinn) Allowed,subjectto justexceptions. CRL.M.C. 2974/201^

¶1By way of this petition, cliallenge has been made to order dated

17.05.2013passedbyLd. Judge,FamilyCourts,Saket,NewDelhi,whereby interim maintenance of ^7000/- per month has been awarded to respondent/wife.

¶2Briefly,the factsofthe caseare as under: Thepetitionerwas marriedto respondentno.1on 21.11.2009at Delhi. ApetitionunderSection125 Cr.P.C.has beenfiledby i^spondentno.l/wife against petitioner/husbandbefore the Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi. Alongwithsaidpetition,an applicationhas beenmovedforgrantofinterim maintenancetillthedecisionofthemainpetition. Therespondentno.1/wife Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. has alleged in the said petitionthat she was married with petitioneron

21.11.2009 at Delhi and after marriage she was harassed, tortured for bringinginsufficientdow^-. Afterabout 10 days ofliving at matrimonial home,thepetitioner/husbandbroughtherin arentedaccommodationwhich was ownedby oneMrs.Anjuwhereboththepartieswereresidingand there also the behaviourofthe husbandwas not properand she was made to do householdwork ofMrs.Anju. In the petition,she has made allegationsof harassmentto her by petitionerand his family members. The respondent no.l had also made allegationsthat earliershe was workingat Net Ambit, Sector-7,Noida where petitioner/husbandcame and abusedher in afil% language,as aresultofwhichherserviceswereterminated. It is statedthat the petitioneris well qualifiedand working as AssistantManager with AVIVA Life InsuranceCorporationand gettingagood salaryand is also earmngfi-om tuitionsand also owns immovablepropertyand his incomeis more than ?1 lakh per month. She has prayed for grantof?50,000/-per month as interimmaintenance.

¶3The petitioner/husbandhas opposedthe petitionofwife for grantof interim maintenanceas well as regular maintenanceby denying all the allegationsmade by respondentno.l/wifeexcept the factum of marriage. Thepetitioner/husbandhas allegedthatrespondent/wifehas stayedwithhim for7daysandthereafterleftthematrimonialhomeas shewantedto go back andjoinherjob. Thepetitionerhas allegedthatrespondentno.l/wifeis well qualifiedand she is maintainingher parentsand earninggood amount, as suchshe is not entitledfor maintenance. Page 2 of4

¶4For the disposalofapplicationfor grantof interimmaintenance,tlie partieswere asked to file theirrespectiveincome affidavits. Afterhearing the partiesand perusingthe affidavitsfiled by them, the Ld. Judge,Family Courts,observedthat as per the affidavitofpetitioner/husbandhis salaryis ?29,000/-permonth,whereasas perthe affidavitofrespondent/wifeshehas leftthejobm2010. Shehasworkedup to December,2010andis dependent upon herparentsand grantedinterimmaintenanceof?7000/-per month to wife. Aggrievedwiththe samepresentpetitionis filed.

¶5Learnedcounselappearingfor petitioner/husbandhas submittedthat the respondentno.1/wifeis morequalifiedthanthe petitioner/husband.She has done MBA and that respondentno.l is presentlyworking,as such Ld. Judge,FamilyCourtsoughtnothavegrantedinterimmaintenanceto her.

¶6Perusal of impugned order shows that as per the stand of the respondentno.1/wife,herserviceswereterminatedbecauseherhusbandhad gone to her office and abused her. She has stated on affidavitthat her services were terminated in December, 2010. Though, the petitioner/husbandhas alleged that she is presently working, however, nothmghas beenplacedon recordby him to substantiatethatpresentlyshe has got some sourceof income. The petitionerhas made bald allegations withoutgivingany detailsin thisregard. Even if, respondent/wifeis more qualified,as is submittedby the petitioner,the same doesnot meanthatshe IS not entitledfor maintenance,whenno proofis fiimishedby petitionerof her being working anywhere. There is a salary certificate of petitioner/husbandon recordwhich showsthat he is workingwithAVIVA LifeInsurance,Gurgaonandhis salaiyis ?29,000/-permonth. Considering Page 3 of4 the materialon recordthe learnedJudge,FamilyCourtshas granted^7000/- per month maintenance to the wife.

¶7As per the affidavitof petitioner/husbandhis father is retired from service. It is not his case that his father is not getting pension and is financiallydependentupon him. Further,it has come in the affidavitthat brotherofthe petitioneris alsoworking.

¶8Consideringthe totality of facts and circumstances,the impugned order granting interim maintenance of ^7000/- per month to the respondent/wifeis basedon materialon record. No illegalityis seen in the impugnedorder. In any case,ifthe respondentno.1is working,as per the standofthe petitioner,he is free to establishthe same when evidenceofthe partieswill be recordedfor the disposalofmain petitionunderSection125 Cr.P.C. The petition stands dismissed. CRL.M.A.11279/2013Tstav) In view of above order, this application stands dismissed as infmctuous. VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 31,2013 srb

$-10 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MADHUSUDANSONI petitioner Through:Ms.CharuSachdev,Adv. versus ^nu&ors. Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEVEENABIRBAL