The potential for earning does not preclude a spouse from claiming maintenance under the DV Act if they have no independent income sufficient for support.

Headnote:
DV Act - Maintenance - Section 23 of the DV Act - [Section 23 of the DV Act] - The court upheld the order for interim maintenance to the respondent, emphasizing that the wife's potential for earning does not preclude her from claiming maintenance. The court also cited the Supreme Court's observation that an order for maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the claimant has no independent income sufficient for support.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and respondent got married, but differences arose, leading to the respondent filing a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act for direction to let her reside in the shared household and an application under Section 23 of the DV Act for maintenance. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially declined to grant interim maintenance, but the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the respondent's claim, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to explain the transactions in his bank accounts and that the respondent, despite being more qualified, was not currently earning any income. The court emphasized that the wife's potential for earning does not preclude her from claiming maintenance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's income, the respondent's potential for earning, and the grant of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the DV Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 23 of the DV Act and the Supreme Court's observation that an order for maintenance is conditional on the claimant having no independent income sufficient for support.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the order for interim maintenance to the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 28.02.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2/19, affirming the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court in an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the DV Act") directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.16,500/- as interim maintenance to the respondent herein/wife.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

a) The petitioner and the respondent got married on 01.12.2014 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A child was born out of the wedlock but unfortunately the child expired. Differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent. It is stated that the respondent herein left the matrimonial home on 22.02.2016. It is stated that the respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act praying for direction to the petitioner herein to let the respondent herein reside in the shared household, granting injunction against the family members of the petitioner herein including his father, mother, sisters and their husbands, from repeating any acts of violence mentioned in the complaint and for grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The respondent herein also filed an application under Section 23 of the DV Act for grant of maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month.

b) Affidavits of income were filed by the petitioner and the respondent. In her affidavit, the respondent herein stated that she is a graduate and has done diploma course in fashion designing but after marriage she left her job. She also stated that the petitioner herein is working in a private firm and he is also running business and he is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is also stated that the petitioner herein is having credit cards and also has a car. It was contended by the respondent herein that the petitioner herein has concealed his income. The petitioner herein filed a reply denying all the allegations against him.

c) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16.01.2018 declined to grant interim maintenance to the respondent herein on the ground that the respondent herein was working and that she, being a well qualified spouse, is not entitled to interim maintenance.

d) Against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 56/2018, was filed by the respondent herein before the learned Additional Session Judge. The learned Additional Session Judge after relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, held that merely because the wife is qualified and has a potential for earning, cannot be a ground to reject her claim of maintenance. The order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded back. On remand, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate analysed the bank statements of the petitioner herein. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the statement of bank account of the petitioner herein shows that various transactions are being made in his account on a regular basis which he has failed to explain satisfactorily. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also held that the income affidavit of the petitioner herein shows that he earns Rs.7,500/- per month, however, he is living in his own house and having FDRs to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs, he owns a motorcycle and a car. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate refused to accept the Income Tax Returns of the petitioner as his true income on the ground that normally businessmen conceal their actual income in order to evade tax. After perusing the material on record the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.16,500/- per month, from the date of the petition till the disposal of the case, to the respon