The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly regarding entitlement to maintenance and the limited powers of revisional courts.

1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition impugning the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner is wife of respondent Indermeet Juneja. She filed a complaint case bearing No.352/3 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alongwith an application for monetary relief under Section 23 of the Act. Her prayer for interim monetary relief was declined vide order dated 18.11.2010 by the learned M.M.

2. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the learned M.M. declining monetary relief to her. In appeal, the learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2011 though declined the prayer of interim monetary relief to the petitioner, partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition towards contribution of the respondent to maintain the child born out of the wedlock of the parties.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ committed an error in declining the relief to her on the ground that she was well qualified, capable to maintain herself and had the capacity to work and that she had also been actually earning in the past and was thus not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent. The petitioner has submitted that earlier she was working with Met Life Insurance Company since the birth of her child. The company due to its relocation process had asked the petitioner to shift to Bangalore. She could not accept this offer as it would not be appropriate for the child to be uprooted from the place where she has been residing and due to the fact that there were visitation orders passed by the learned Sessions Court and had the petitioner along with the child shifted to Bangalore, the said orders could not have been complied with. As such the petitioner turned down the offer of the company. The company refused to change its policy and the petitioner was forced to resign from her job.

4. The relieving letter placed on record by the petitioner is dated 17.08.2010. As per this relieving letter the date of joining of the petitioner with Met Life was 07.01.2008 and her designation at the time of leaving the company was Assistant Manager (Service Delivery). She has been relieved pursuant to her resignation letter dated 17.06.2010. This letter is not accompanied by the resignation letter of the petitioner giving the reasons for her resignation or the policy of the company to shift her to Bangalore. It is relevant to mention here that while the date of joining of petitioner with Met Life Insurance is 07.01.2008, the petitioner has given birth to a female child on 18.09.2008 i.e. in the same year and despite having infant child to take care, she has served the company till she was relieved on 17.08.2010.

5. The contention of petitioner is that in order to comply with the order of the Court to allow the respondent to have visitation right she could not shift to Bangalore. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any point of time despite continuous litigation going on between the parties she had approached the Court for modification of the order regarding visitation right. If the petitioner of her own prefers to resign, she cannot take shelter under the Court order regarding visitation right. With the passage of time the child has grown up and is of school going age. Thus, it is more convenient for a working mother to be in the job then to sit at home.

6. The learned ASJ has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the petitioner by holding that she was well educated lady earning Rs.50,000/- per month and had chosen not to work of her own will though had the capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself.

7. The learned ASJ in the impugned order has also corrected the error appearing in the order of learned M.M declining the monetary relief to the child for the reason that she was not th