Madhu Sudan Soni v. ^nu&ors

1. By way of this petition, cliallenge has been made to order dated 17.05.2013 passed byLd. Judge, FamilyCourts, Saket,NewDelhi, whereby interim maintenance of ^7000/- per month has been awarded to respondent/wife.

2. Briefly, the facts ofthe case are as under: The petitionerwas married to respondentno.1on 21.11.2009 at Delhi. Apetition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by i^spondentno.l/wife against petitioner/husband before the Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi. Along with said petition, an application has been moved for grant ofinterim maintenancetill the decision ofthe main petition. The respondentno.1/wife Page 1 of[4] 2013:DHC:7405 has alleged in the said petition that she was married with petitioner on 21.11.2009 at Delhi and after marriage she was harassed, tortured for bringing insufficient dow^-. After about 10 days ofliving at matrimonial home, the petitioner/husband brought her in arentedaccommodation which was owned by one Mrs.Anju where both the parties were residing and there also the behaviour ofthe husband was not proper and she was made to do household work ofMrs.Anju. In the petition, she has made allegations of harassment to her by petitioner and his family members. The respondent no.l had also made allegations that earlier she was working at Net Ambit, Sector-7, Noida where petitioner/husband came and abused her in afil% language, as aresult ofwhich her services were terminated. It is stated that the petitioner is well qualified and working as Assistant Manager with AVIVA Life Insurance Corporation and getting agood salary and is also earmng fi-om tuitions and also owns immovable property and his income is more than ?1 lakh per month. She has prayed for grant of?50,000/- per month as interimmaintenance.

3. The petitioner/husband has opposed the petition ofwife for grant of interim maintenance as well as regular maintenance by denying all the allegations made by respondent no.l/wife except the factum ofmarriage. The petitioner/husbandhas allegedthat respondent/wife has stayed with him for7daysandthereafterleftthematrimonialhomeas shewantedtogoback andjoinherjob. The petitionerhas allegedthatrespondentno.l/wife is well qualified and she is maintaining her parents and earning good amount, as such she is not entitled for maintenance. Page 2 of[4]

4. For the disposal ofapplication for grant of interim maintenance, tlie parties were asked to file their respective income affidavits. After hearing the parties and perusing the affidavits filed by them, the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, observed that as per the affidavit ofpetitioner/husband his salary is ?29,000/- permonth, whereas as perthe affidavit ofrespondent/wife she has leftthejobm2010. Shehas workedup to December, 2010and isdependent upon her parents and granted interim maintenance of?7000/- per month to wife. Aggrieved with the same presentpetition is filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/husband has submitted that the respondentno.1/wife is more qualified than the petitioner/husband. She has done MBA and that respondent no.l is presently working, as such Ld. Judge, Family Courts oughtnothave granted interimmaintenanceto her.

6. Perusal of impugned order shows that as per the stand of the respondentno.1/wife, her services were terminated becauseherhusbandhad gone to her office and abused her. She has stated on affidavit that her services were terminated in December, 2010. Though, the petitioner/husband has alleged that she is presently working, however, nothmg has beenplaced on record by him to substantiate that presently she has got some source ofincome. The petitioner has made bald allegations without giving any details in this regard. Even if, respondent/wife is more qualified, as is submitted by the petitioner, the same does not mean that she IS not entitled for maintenance, when no proofis fiimished by petitioner of her being working anywhere. There is a salary certificate of petitioner/husband on record which shows that he is working with AVIVA LifeInsurance, Gurgaonandhis salaiyis?29,000/-permonth. Considering Page 3 of[4] the material on record the learned Judge, Family Courts has granted ^7000/per month maintenance to the wife.

7. As per the affidavit ofpetitioner/husband his father is retired from service. It is not his case that his father is not getting pension and is financially dependent upon him. Further, it has come in the affidavit that brother ofthe petitioner is also working.

8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the impugned order granting interim maintenance of ^7000/- per month to the respondent/wife is based on material on record. No illegality is seen in the impugned order. In any case, ifthe respondent no.1is working, as per the stand ofthe petitioner, he is free to establish the same when evidence ofthe parties will be recorded for the disposal ofmain petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petition stands dismissed. CRL.M.A. 11279/2013 Tstav) In view of above order, this application stands dismissed as infmctuous.