Kumar Siddharth v. Olga Maurya

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Family Court (West), Delhi in MT Case NO. 91/2018 titled as Olga Maurya v. Kumar Siddharth whereby, the petitioner was directed to pay the interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was based on the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of January, 2019, according to which the petitioner’s net pay was found to be Rs.44,499/- per month. After granting two units to the respondent and two units to the petitioner, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to Rs.18,000/- per month as maintenance. However, despite arriving to the aforesaid conclusion, Rs.20,000/- has 2021:DHC:3697 been directed to be paid to the respondent without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has resigned from the post of Inspector, Excise in the month of March, 2019 and has not drawn any salary from the month of March, 2019 onwards. He, thus, submits that the Family Court has not considered this aspect of the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has supported the impugned order. She has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehavior annexed with Charge Memorandum dated 27.09.2019, wherein in para 4.3, it has been noted that the Department vide its letters dated 05.03.2019 and 06.03.2019 (via E-mail) had directed the petitioner to rejoin the duty within three days. It is submitted that the petitioner’s resignation was never accepted and in fact, he was later removed from his service vide order dated 21.10.2020. It is also submitted that the petitioner has deliberately not claimed his salary from the month of March, 2019 onwards to avoid payment of interim maintenance to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not averse to comply with the directions passed by the learned Family Court and pay the respondent interim maintenance @ Rs.18,000/- per month from the date of the application till the time he was drawing his salary from the Department.

5. A perusal of the facts of the case would show that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.10.2017. The petitioner was working as an Inspector of Central Tax, Bengaluru Audit-1 Commissionerate, Bengaluru. While passing the impugned order, the Trial Court took into account the salary slip for the month of January, 2019 and after noting the statutory deductions came to a finding that petitioner’s net pay was Rs.44,499/- per month and awarded two units to the respondent as maintenance and for maintaining a separate household, thus, awarded Rs.18,000/- per month to her.

6. A plain reading of the impugned order would show that although while calculating the respondent’s share, her entitlement was fixed @ Rs.18,000/- per month but while directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month, the Family Court did not assign any specific reason. The award of extra Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent had no basis.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.18,000/- from the date of filing of the application till February, 2019. He, on instructions, further submits that the entire amount of arrears from August, 2018 till February, 2019 shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today. The said undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record and he is held bound by the same.

8. The application for maintenance came to be filed in the month of August, 2018. In view of the submissions recorded hereinabove and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs.18,000/- from the month of August, 2018 till February, 2019.

9. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have no objection if the matter is remanded back to decide on the aspect of interim maintenance from March, 2019 onwards.

10. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to remand the matter back to the Family Court to decide afresh on the aspect of interim maintenance from March, 2019 onwards after adducing necessary evidence in this regard. The petitioner shall be at liberty to urge that he has not taken his salary from March, 2019 onwards and for the respondent to urge otherwise.

11. Subject to payment of arrears @ Rs.18,000/- per month from August, 2018 till February, 2019 by the petitioner within a period of four weeks, the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in Execution Petition NO. 3242/2019 by the Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi shall remain stayed.

12. With these directions, the petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.

13. A copy of this order be communicated electronically to the concerned Family Court.

JUDGE NOVEMBER 16, 2021 p’ma