The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and children, considering their status and the mode of life they were used to when living together. The court also emphasized the need for documentary evidence to determine the husband's income and the allocation of maintenance amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. The first captioned petition has been preferred by petitioner-Pooja seeking setting aside of order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby she has been awarded interim maintenance @Rs.7,500/- per month, while claiming it to be on lower side.

2. In the second petition, revisionist- Sanjay Chopra is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.12.2019 vide which he has been directed to pay interim maintenance @Rs.7,500/- per month to his wife- Pooja.

3. The basis of these petitions is a matrimonial discord between Pooja/wife and Sanjay Chopra/husband which has resulted into various complaints and litigations between the parties. What has made parties reach this Court is the order dated 18.05.2018 vide which application for interim maintenance filed by the wife was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved against the said order, wife preferred an appeal and the learned court of Sessions while allowing the said appeal vide order dated 17.12.2019, directed husband to pay Rs.7,500/- per month towards maintenance to wife and the said order is impugned in these petitions by both the parties.

4. In short, the background of the case is that the parties got married on 24.07.2016 as per Hindu Rites. It was a second marriage for both the parties. The wife had a son-Hitesh from first marriage, which was in her custody and care at the time of marriage with (second) husband. However, due to temperamental differences, the parties started living separately since 01.10.2016 i.e. within three months of their marriage and on 21.10.2016, the wife filed a complaint against the husband and his family alleging domestic violence.

5. In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the wife filed an application seeking interim maintenance and the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 07.06.2017, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance @Rs.25,000/- per month (Rs.12,500 per month, each for wife and son).

6. Against the said order dated 07.06.2017, husband filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate and placed his income affidavit, income tax returns and bank statement on record and taking the said documents into consideration, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application of wife for interim maintenance while holding as under:-

“During courts of arguments, the complainant has filed copy of her termination letter dated 05.11.2016. Copy of final warning letter from M/s Marketing Times Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has not disclosed the factum of her previous employment in her income Affidavit, despite being bound to do so. Further as per documents filed by the complainant, she was terminated from services due to indiscipline. No efforts have been shown to be made by the complainant to obtain another employment. The complainant cannot be given the benefit of her own wrong. Thus considering the material available on record, this court holds that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and thus she is not entitled to grant of any interim relief. For these reasons, the application at hand is dismissed.”

7. The appeal preferred by the wife was allowed by the Court of Sessions while observing as under:-

“11. It is an admitted fact that for both the appellant and the respondent, it was their second marriage. It is also not in dispute that appellant had a son from the previous marriage and that she is 9th Class pass. Though, it is brought on record that the appellant/complainant had worked for sometime on monthly stipend of Rs. 6,000/-, but her services were terminated. Merely because, she has not been able to get re-employment, it cannot be said that she has intentionally chosen not to work. Her qualification and her situation do not arrant any such conclusion to be drawn that she is intentionally not working.

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

17. Considering the Bank Statement of the respondent and the totality of circumstances, it is held that Appellant is