The obligation of the husband to provide maintenance under the DV Act is emphasized, and disputed facts regarding the petitioner's employment should be resolved at trial.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

Petitioner impugns judgment dated 25.08.2018 whereby the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent no. 2/husband, impugning order dated 26.06.2018 of the Trial Court and set aside the same. The Trial Court has awarded interim maintenance to the Petitioner/wife of Rs. 16,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act).

2. Petitioner and Respondent no. 2 married on 14.02.2015. As per the Petitioner, her parents had spent lavishly on her marriage and fulfilled all demands of Respondent no. 2 and his family. After the marriage, Petitioner started residing with Respondent no. 2 at her matrimonial home in Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) along with him and his family. It is alleged that thereafter Petitioner was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws who were dissatisfied with the dowry articles. Further, it is alleged that all her jewellery articles and Istridhan were taken by her in laws on the pretext of keeping them safe in a bank locker.

3. It is further alleged that she was consistently harassed by her husband and her in-laws. It is alleged that without informing the Petitioner, Respondent no. 2 left the matrimonial house at Muradnagar, Ghaziabad and started living at Pune (Maharashtra) and refused to return to the matrimonial home.

4. Subsequently, when Petitioner went to live with her husband at Pune, she came to know that he was living in a flat which was in a dilapidated condition and did not even have separate toilet facilities; however, she was still forced to live with her husband there. It is alleged that she was also neglected because of which she became unwell and was forced to leave her matrimonial home and live with her parents at Muradnagar. Thereafter she shifted to Laxmi Nagar, Delhi as she was preparing for bank examination.

5. Petitioner filed subject petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. On the interim application under Section 23(1) of the D.V. Act, the Trial Court by its order dated 26.06.2018, held the income of Respondent no.2/husband to be Rs. 50,000/- and apportioned the same into three parts and awarded Rs. 16,500/- to the Petitioner per month as maintenance.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, Respondent no. 2 filed an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2018.

7. The Appellate Court has reversed the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court primarily on the ground that Petitioner was duly qualified and educated person and there was no reason mentioned as to why she was unemployed. Further, the Appellate Court was of the view that Respondent no. 2 had produced material to show that Petitioner was gainfully employed and had been working in Aastha Infracity Ltd. Further the Appellate Court held that uncle of Respondent no. 2 had managed to get her a job in Indian Railways and she was receiving salary therefrom.

8. Further, the Appellate Court held that Petitioner had failed to disclose her employment and had not approached the court with clean hands. The Appellate Court held that as Petitioner was in a position to work and earn her livelihood, she could not be said to be a victim of vagrancy and being a self-created situation, she was disentitled to maintenance.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was not gainfully employed. It is submitted that Petitioner had made several attempts to secure an employment but was unable to do so. Learned counsel submits that Petitioner has never worked with the Indian Railways. Uncle of the Respondent no. 2 had fraudulently secured an employment in her name in Indian Railways from which salary was being credited to an account opened in her name and the money deposited in the said account was being debited by the uncle and credited to his son's account.

10. It is contended that Petitioner has never worked at the said job and has even made a comp