The court emphasized the limited scope of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, highlighting that these powers should be sparingly exercised and not used as a means to re-consider facts or re-appreciate evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Asha Menon, J.

1. The petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders dated 24th September, 2020 passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Rohini, New Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-01, (North) Rohini, dated 17th January, 2020.

2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent herein had filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short), seeking interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from the petitioner No. 1 for herself and the minor child. Vide the order dated 17th January, 2020, the learned MM concluded that the income of the petitioner No. 1 could be assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per month and dividing the income equally amongst the family members with an extra portion to the petitioner No. 1, granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent and the child of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent, with effect from 26th August, 2018 till they were legally entitled to receive the same or till the final disposal of the case.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, which the learned Appellate Court dismissed vide the impugned order dated 24th September, 2020, holding that the well-reasoned order of the Learned Mahila Court called for no interference.

4. Before this Court, it was argued by Mr. Deepak Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned order of the Learned Appellate Court as well as the order of the Learned Mahila Court suffered from infirmity, as they had failed to factor in many material facts. It was submitted that the respondent had been employed till the birth of the child and, therefore, was capable of earning. It was argued that the learned courts had refused to set off a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- which the petitioners had paid to the respondent on 16th August, 2018. It was also submitted that the bank account statements filed by the respondent before the learned Trial Court itself revealed that there were regular payments that were being credited into her account which indicated a regular source of income and which was again overlooked by the learned Courts below. On the other hand, the Learned Appellate Court also overlooked the fact that the income of the petitioner No. 1 was assumed to be Rs. 30,000/- per month which was on the higher side, with no material to justify such an assumption. It was urged that the petitioner No. 1 had also to discharge the loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- for purchase of a car, in respect of which EMIs were also remaining to be paid. Moreover, the Covid-19 lockdown had also adversely affected his salary which had been now reduced to a mere Rs. 10,000/- per month. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the orders of the Learned Mahila Court as well as the Learned Appellate Court be set aside.

5. Mr. C.M. Thapliyal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or even Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court could not re-consider the facts. It was submitted that there was no perversity in the impugned orders calling for any interference by this Court. Furthermore, it was submitted that the fact that the respondent had been employed at some point of time, would not justify a denial of maintenance to her, as the capacity of the wife to earn and the question whether she was actually earning were different from each other. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shailja v. Khobbana (2018) 12 SCC 199. It was further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was in arrears of maintenance to the tune of more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was also submitted that the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/