Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Nitin Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Sunita Sharma & Others – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. Nos. 322, 374 of 2020 & Crl.M.A.No.13958 of 2020
Decided On : 18-02-2021
Maintenance - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - [125 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and its interpretation in the context of determining the quantum of maintenance. The court highlighted the husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children, the permissible deductions from the husband's income, and the factors to be considered in fixing the amount of maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The husband sought quashing of an order enhancing interim maintenance to his wife, while the wife sought further enhancement. The dispute revolved around the amount of interim maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband contested the trial court's assessment of his income and the quantum of maintenance, while the wife argued that the amount fixed was on the lower side.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in considering the husband's income and in dividing it into shares for the purpose of determining maintenance. It held that the deductions from the husband's income should be limited to income tax and compulsory contributions, and not include expenses like rent and loan repayments. The court also emphasized the husband's obligation to provide shelter to his wife and children.
Issues: The issues revolved around the assessment of the husband's income, the permissible deductions from the income, and the determination of the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and relevant case law, emphasizing the husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children, the permissible deductions from the husband's income, and the factors to be considered in fixing the amount of maintenance.
Final Decision: The impugned order enhancing interim maintenance was modified, and the wife was entitled to a higher amount of maintenance. The petitions and pending application were disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide above captioned first petition, petitioner/husband is seeking quashing of order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dawarka, vide which amount of interim maintenance has been enhanced to Rs.22,000/- against the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned trial court, whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to respondent/ wife.
2. Vide above captioned second petition, petitioner/wife is seeking modification of the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, vide which interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the trial court has been enhanced to Rs.22,000/- while claiming it to be on the lower side.
3. The subject matter of dispute in these petitions is essentially a matrimonial dispute. Since the orders impugned in both the petitions are common, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. In a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife, the learned trial court vide order dated 17.09.2019 has passed following directions:-
“No settlement could arrive at between the parties in the counselling cell. However, it appears that parties are agreeable to live in a rented accommodation. But the respondent submits that he shall find rented accommodation somewhere near his office.
Respondent is directed to file suitable rented accommodation before the next date of hearing. By that time, he is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to petitioner.
The petitioner shall give her complete address to respondent where he can meet both his children as per his convenience.”
5. Dissatisfied with the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court vide order dated 17.09.2020, the wife preferred an application seeking enhancement of interim maintenance and the said application was allowed vide order dated 16.07.2020, while observing as under:-
“In view of the above facts and circumstances the application filed by the petitioners for interim maintenance is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,400/- per month each to petitioners no.1 to 3 i.e. Rs.22,000/- PM from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the petition. The respondent is directed to make the payment of entire arrears of maintenance within a period of 5 months from today. Any amount paid by the respondent to the petitioners as maintenance under the order of any court shall be adjusted against the arrears. The application is disposed of accordingly.”
6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, parties have approached this Court for relief.
7. The stand taken by husband is that the order dated 16.07.2020 is illegal and devoid of merits. According to husband, the trial court has failed to appreciate that he had been regularly paying ad interim maintenance @Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife, though he himself has been earning Rs.39,560/- per month. Husband has alleged that the learned trial court has erred in taking his annual income at Rs.5,19,655/- as per Income Tax Returns (ITR) for the assessment year 2019-20, whereas his actual income as per ITR for the said year was Rs.4,36,880/- after deduction of tax. He has further raised grievance that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial court has not considered his salary receipt for the month of September, 2019 but has wrongly considered one entry in the bank statement which showed credit of Rs.44,560/- taking it to be his salary on 30.08.2019, whereas the fact is that in the month of August, 2019 he had received annual dress allowance of Rs.5,000/- in addition to his salary of Rs.39,560/- p.m. Besides, trial court has also not taken into consideration the amount of rent paid by him. It is stated that i
The court established that only statutory deductions from income are permissible when determining maintenance obligations, emphasizing the husband's duty to support dependents regardless of personal ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, considering his financial capacity and the wife's need for support, as provided under the Hindu....
The court established that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children is paramount, and only statutory deductions from income are permissible in determining maintenance amounts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a wife to maintenance equal to the status and stature of her husband, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife, and th....
The wife is entitled to an enhancement of maintenance based on the husband's income and the wife's financial situation. The court emphasizes the need for timely disposal of maintenance applications a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, including the factors to be considered and the need for a reasonable and realistic mainten....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
