The judgment established that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C aim to prevent destitution of a deserted wife and must be considered in light of the welfare of the children. It also clarified that one incident of adultery may not automatically disqualify a person from receiving maintenance.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The present petition is a criminal revision petition filed by the Revisionist Petitioner, an Indian Army colonel, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 30.5.2018 passed by Ld. Family Court Tis Hazari in MT No. 78/2018 wherein the Court passed an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing the Petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.33,500/- to the Respondent herein.

2. Before delving into the merits of the case it would be important to advert to the material facts of the case.

a) The marriage of the Petitioner was solemnized on 22.12.2002 according to Sikh rites and rituals in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Out of the wedlock, they have two Children-Suhani Singh aged 10 years and Shabad Singh aged 7 years old.

b) The Revisionist Petitioner has been posted across the territory of India as a result of his service in the Army. The Revisionist Petitioner and the Respondent were peacefully married and residing happily together until 2015 where the Petitioner alleges that he found that the Respondent was in an adulterous relationship with one of the petitioners senior in the army, who was married and close with the family as well.

c) In July 2015, it is stated that the Petitioner found out that the Respondent was in an amorous relationship with the superior/family friend of the Petitioner. The Petitioner admittedly checked the Respondents phone and discovered on her WhatsApp, certain chats which were lascivious in nature, with the Petitioners superior which was recorded by him to confront the Respondent on her actions.

d) It is stated that on 8.8.2015, the Petitioner hosted a dinner party where he had invited both his and Respondents respective parents and had invited his army superior/ paramour of the Respondent and his spouse. The Petitioner all the time at the party was wearing a body audio/tape recorder after the dinner party was over he started by giving a speech and where in the middle he spoke about the affair of Respondent No.2 and a family face-off ensued which lasted for 30 minutes.

e) The entire communication of that dinner party was recorded and was transcribed and has been placed on record before this Court.

f) Admittedly, after the dinner party the Petitioner made his intentions very clear of wanting to separate from the Respondent and sever all marital ties with her. The Petitioner firmly stated before the families that he would have the custody of the children. It is stated that the Respondent tried to apologize numerous times but the same was not accepted by the Petitioner and all attempts of reconciliation made by Respondent had failed.

g) The Respondent thereafter filed a slew of cases against the Petitioner claiming different reliefs from him. Given below are the cases that the Respondent has filed against the Petitioner.

i. Maintenance Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.(MT-78 of 2018) filed before the Family Court, Tis Hazari which has cumulated in the present Revision Petition.

ii. Guardianship Petition (G.P. 45 of 2015) u/s 9 of the Guardianship & Wards Act, 1890 filed before the PDJ, Family Court, Tis Hazari.

iii. Guardianship Petition No. 5 of 2015 before the Family Court in Bikaner, Rajasthan.

iv. Transfer Petition (Civil) 602 of 2016 before the Honble Supreme Court of India.

v. Domestic Violence case criminal complaint No. 197/01/2015.

vi. Civil Suit No. 9987 of 2016 before the District Judge, Tis Hazari.

vii. HMA No. 97 of 2016 before the Family Court, Tis Hazari.

h) It is stated that on 13.08.2015, the petitioner made a written representation to Brigadier Ajay Vij. CDR 79 Mountain Brigade against his superior who was allegedly in an amorous relationship with the Respondent and appropriate proceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal had been initiated under Section 45 of the Army Act 1950.

i) Simultaneous proceedings at different locations have been going on between the parties.

j) In the petition for maintenance, the learned Family Court vide order dated 10.04.2017