Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Amit Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Shelkka Sharma & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. 71/2022 & Crl.M.A 2210/2022
Decided On : 31-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Surender Chauhan And Mr. Abhinav Kajal, Advocates, for the Appellant; Ms. Swaty Singh Malik And Ms. Tanvi Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The discretion of the Magistrate in awarding maintenance and the need to prevent vagrancy and destitution were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure - 125 - 397, 401 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and the legal principles established in various judgments related to maintenance, the assessment of income, and the discretion of the Magistrate in awarding maintenance. The court upheld the orders for maintenance based on the evidence and material available on record.
Fact of the Case:

The parties got married and had two children. The wife filed a petition claiming maintenance, and the court directed the husband to pay maintenance. The husband filed a revision petition challenging the orders for maintenance.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders for maintenance were based on the evidence and material available on record. It declined to interfere with the orders and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The main issue was the assessment of the husband's income and the award of maintenance to the wife and children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretion of the Magistrate in awarding maintenance, the need to consider the financial status of the parties, and the objective of preventing vagrancy and destitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the orders for maintenance.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 6th August, 2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi (hereinafter 'learned Principal Judge') in Maintenance Case No. 327/2018 titled as Shelkka Sharma & Ors. vs. Amit Sharma, by which the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to respondent nos. 2 and 3, each; and order dated 6th March 2021 by which an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C was dismissed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Brief facts as transpired from the record are as follows:

i. Both the revisionist and the respondent got married on 11th May, 2005, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock two children were born. Master Aarav (respondent no. 2) was born on 22nd January 2008 in United States of America and Master Ryan (Respondent no. 3) was born on 11th January 2014 at New Delhi. In or about June 2018, relationship between the parties got strained. The Respondent no. 1 left the company of the revisionist and on 5th June 2018 filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C claiming maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month along with the application of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for herself and her two minor sons.

ii. The revisionist, upon receipt of the notice in the aforesaid petition, appeared and filed a detailed reply to the said petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C denying all the allegations.

iii. The Court below vide order dated 7th August 2018 directed the parties to file income details on affidavit. Both the parties filed their respective income affidavits. Respondent no. 1 also filed her rejoinder to the reply filed by the revisionist.

iv. On 29th July, 2020 during the course of arguments on the application seeking ad-interim maintenance, both the parties agreed that the date of separation is November 2019 and from January 2020 onwards the revisionist will pay school fees for both the children and will also pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to meet their expenses by the end of each month by transferring money in the bank account of the Respondent no. 2 and 3. It was further agreed that the revisionist will pick both the children on every Saturday at 12 Noon from the house of respondent no.1 and drop back by 8 PM on Sunday.

v. The impugned order dated 6th August 2020 was passed by the Court below, wherein the revisionist's income was assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and he was directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month to Respondent no. 2 and 3, each, including their school fees from the date of filing of the application. It was also held that Respondent no. 1 herein is earning sufficient money to effectively maintain herself and therefore she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance.

vi. Thereafter, the revisionist filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C for alteration and modification of order dated 6th August 2020, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th March 2021.

vii. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 6th August 2020 and 6th March 2021, the instant Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist. Revisionist prays for partly setting aside the order dated 6th August 2020 and setting aside the order dated 6th March 2021, both passed by learned Principal Judge.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Surender Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submitted that respondent is a women of sufficient means and is earning more than Rs. 1 Lakh per month. It is submitted that Court below has wrongly and illegally assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 1,00,000/- per month without considering the reply to the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and the affidavit of Income and Assets, wherein the revisionist categorically mentioned his income as Rs. 25,208/- per month. The respondent no. 1 although alleged in her petition under