IMPORTANT POINT
Mere fact that the spouse with whom the child is living is having a source of income, even if sufficient, would in no way absolve the other spouse of his obligation to make his contribution towards the maintenance and welfare of the child.

JUDGMENT

I.S. Mehta, J.—Instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner- Sukhjinder Singh Saini under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2015 passed the learned Special Judge CBI-03,(PC Act), Delhi in CA No. 04/2015, titled as “Sukhjinder Singh Saini Vs. Harvinder Kaur” whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed an appeal filed by the present petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the order dated 23.01.2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC. No. 106/6/14 filed by the respondent- Harvinder Kaur under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent/complainant and petitioner have met through a matrimonial advertisement which was advertise by the parents of the respondent/complainant and then with the consent of both the parties they got engaged on 21.12.2008 and thereafter the marriage was solemnized at Ambala according to Sikh rites and customs on 22.02.2009. Out of the wedlock a male child namely Daksh Preet was born on 11.06.2013. After their marriage the respondent/complainant started to live at her matrimonial house with her in-laws and petitioner/husband at Zirkpur, Panchkula, Haryana and spent around one month. During the stay, after one week, the mother-in-law of the respondent/complainant started taunting and commenting about fewer dowries. Further the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent/complainant always demanded a luxury car from her and pressurized her for above said demand. The respondent/complainant after feeling so much humiliation from hands of mother-in-law and sister-in-law, shifted to Delhi after spending 40 days in her matrimonial home. Since 05.01.2014 the respondent/complainant is residing with her parents along with her minor child.

3. Subsequently, the respondent/complainant filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner herein-Sukhjinder Singh Saini (husband of the respondent/complainant), Jaswinder Kaur (mother-in law of respondent/complainant) and Varinder kaur (sister in law of the respondent/complainant) along with an application under Section 23 (2) of the DV Act in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in complaint case No.106/6/14.

4. Consequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the argument of both parties and after perusal of the documents placed on record vide order dated 23.01.2015 directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000- per month which includes the maintenance of her minor child as well as maintenance for alternative accommodation, if any, from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 06.06.2014, till she is legally entitle to receive the same or the final disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 23.01.2015 the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Sessions Court and the learned Special Judge, CBI-03 (PC Act), Delhi vide order dated 07.05.2015 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, i.e. CA No.04/15.

Hence the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the learned Appellate Court and the Trial Court failed to consider the evidences placed on record, particularly the affidavits of the parties, documentary evidences which established that no cruelty or harassment has ever been caused by the petitioner and also the salary details of the respondent/ complainant and passed the order in a very mechanical way.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the since the mother of the petitioner is suffering from cancer since 2009, who is under intensive treatment since then and the pe