IMPORTANT POINT
Interim maintenance – For the purposes of grant of interim maintenance, petitioner-wife cannot be presumed to be earning or being capable of maintaining herself.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking setting aside of the order dated 06.03.2024 [hereafter] ‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Principal Judge, ‘Family Court’ (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter [Family Court ] in MT Case no. 115/2023, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter Cr.P.C.], whereby an amount of Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded as interim maintenance to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she and the respondent were married on 27.06.2021 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies in Uttar Pradesh. No child was born out of the said wedlock. It is stated that soon after marriage, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of insufficient dowry. It is further stated that prior to the marriage, the respondent had represented to the petitioner’s family that he was working as a teacher. According to the petitioner, on 10.06.2022 at about 05:00 PM, she was forcibly turned out of her matrimonial home after being physically assaulted by the respondent and his family members. It is stated that the petitioner is a housewife, has no movable or immovable property in her name, and has no independent source of income. She has studied only up to the 11th standard and is wholly dependent upon her parental family for her sustenance. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a man of means. She claims that he is a graduate and is working as a teacher in a private school, earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is further alleged that he also imparts private tuition and earns an additional Rs. 15,000/- per month, besides running a grocery shop and earning rental income of about Rs. 30,000/- per month, and is leading a comfortable and luxurious life. On these assertions, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in February, 2023.

3. On 04.05.2023, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and submitted that he was working with an NGO and earning only Rs. 8,000/- per month. On the said submission, he was directed to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner. Thereafter, both parties filed their respective affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities.

4. By way of the impugned order dated 06.03.2024, the learned Family Court directed as under:

“...The marriage between the parties is not in dispute and the petitioner/wife claims that she has no source of income. The rival allegations by the parties regarding the earnings of the other side and the reasons for separate living are yet to be established/decided during the course of trial, which is going to take time. The petitioner has averred in her affidavit dated 13.02.2023 that she is unemployed. On the other hand, the respondent has averred in his affidavit dated 25.10.2023 that he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month by working with an NGO at Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. The respondent has also claimed to be residing in a small house constructed over 20 sq. yards and that he has to support his parents, who are living below the poverty line. Considering the rival submissions and in view of the status of the parties, the respondent/husband is hereby directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner/wife from the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance till disposal of the petition or till further orders. The respondent is further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance in four equal monthly installments…”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month awarded as interim maintenance is wholly inadequate and insufficient to meet her basic needs. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Family Court has failed to assess the income of the respondent on the basis of h