The duty of the husband to maintain his wife and the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.07.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Court, Shahdara District in MT-327/14, directing the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of the order i.e. 16.07.2018.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.06.1985. Out of the wedlock, parties had three children two sons were born in the year 1987 and 1989 respectively and one daughter was born in the year 1991. The daughter passed away in the year 2010. Both the sons have attained majority. They are well settled.

3. It is stated that the parties are living separately since 2012. The respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance stating that she was treated with cruelty and was thrown out of the house in the year 2012 and that she is unable to sustain herself and needs maintenance from her husband. It is stated that both the sons are well educated and are employed. At the time of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the petitioner was a Head Constable. The petition states that the petitioner herein draws a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Apart from the salary the petitioner has also got agricultural land from which he is earning income. The respondent herein claimed Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply denying all the allegations of cruelty. The petitioner stated that he has taken care of his children and has given them good education. The petitioner has stated that the respondent is a working lady earning handsomely. It is stated that the respondent herein participates in Jagrans and does TV serials and she is in a position to take care of herself and it cannot be said that the respondent is unable to maintain herself. Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits of income.

4. By an order dated 20.10.2014, learned Family Judge, North-east District, Vishwas Nagar, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.9,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent herein. By the impugned order the amount of maintenance has been fixed at Rs.17,000/- per month.

5. Heard Mr. Neerad Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the documents.

6. Mr. Neerad Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the respondent has given a Statement under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:

"Statement of Ms. Sunita Chaudhary w/o Shri Jaiveer Singh d/o Shri Subedar Ramvir Singh, age 38 years, housewife, r/o H. No. Nil, Gali No. 2, Azad Nagar, Near Railway Station Baraut, U.P.

On SA

I have been living at the above address for the last about one year. I had been living at Bhagirithi Vihar for the period about 7-8 years. At the time of filing of Writ Petition, I was residing at Bhagirithi Vihar. I was doing modeling of and on. 1was having very low income from this profession. I never file any income-tax return. I am without work for the last 6-7 months. I have Bank Account in UCO Bank, Patiala House, Delhi (Witness produced photocopy of the pass book, photocopy of same is marked as Mark A). I am not having any Bank Account. I do not have any insurance policy or FD. My both the sons are in service and they are earning enough. Their income is more than my husband. I did not file case of the maintenance against my sons at the advise of my Counsel Shri D.K. Sharma, Advocate."

He would state that as per her own statement she was doing modelling and that it was for the her to establish that the income earned by her is so less that she cannot maintain herself. The learned counsel for the petitioner further state that the this statement amounts to an admission under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also took this Court through evidence of income filed