The court upheld maintenance orders based on the petitioner's income as established by the respondent's testimony and the petitioner's absence.

V.K. Shali, J.:— (Oral)

1. These are two petitions filed u/S 482 Cr.P.C. challenging two different orders passed by two different Courts in different proceedings pertaining to the grant of maintenance. But in both the petitions, the parties are the same and so are the facts, therefore, they are dealt with together. The petitioner/husband, after initial appearance, has been proceeded ex parte in both the petitions. In the first petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.5.2011 passed by Shri Deepak Jagotra, Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to pay ad interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- each per month to the respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. The case of the respondent no.1 is that she got married to the petitioner on 15.2.2004 according to Hindu rites and customs and from the said wedlock, a male child, Master Pratham, was born on 22.1.2006. The respondent no.1 was subjected to demand of dowry, domestic violence and mental agony, because of which the relations between them got strained and ultimately, the respondent no.1 was thrown from the matrimonial home on 29.6.2006. Since then, she is living with her parents. So far as the income of the petitioner and the grant of maintenance by the respondent no.1 is concerned, it was observed in the impugned order as under:-

6. It is further averred that respondent no.1 is a man of means and running an educational society in the name Nishant Nirala Educational and Welfare Society and his monthly income from the educational society is about Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further averred that respondent also imparts computer training and his income from the same is about Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/- per month. It is further averred that respondent is also running a Motor Driving School in the name of Chacha Motor Driving Training School and earns about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and respondent is also running Nishant Computer Academy and Nishant PT College at five different places and earns about Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month from there. It is further averred that respondent also owns two plots of 200 sq. yds. at Rohini and Harsh Vihar having value of Rs. Sixty Five Lacs and respondent has also shares in different companies and has fixed deposits in his name and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month from there.

3. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 31.3.2011, as he did not put in appearance after initial appearance. The respondent no.1 entered into the Witness Box and testified in support of her complaint that the petitioner is not paying the maintenance despite having the resources, while as she does not have any independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor son. She had also reiterated the averments made in the application with regard to the various sources of income of the petitioner.

4. The Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, held prima facie that the income of the petitioner would be around Rs.40,000/- per month from all sources. The Court below did not believe the statement of the respondent no.1 on all counts so far as the income of the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, taking the income of the petitioner as Rs.40,000/-, she was granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each for self and minor son. So far as the wife is concerned, she was given maintenance for life or till the time she remarries. As regards the minor son, he was given the maintenance till he attains the age of majority.

5. It is this ex parte order which has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner, in the present petition, has challenged the order of the grant of maintenance on the ground that the petitioner is working only as a driver and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. This fact has not been reflected by the petitioner either before the learned Trial Court on account of his absence or subsequent thereto by filing an application seeking modification of th