The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and support the wife and children.

ORDER

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging Order dated 09.11.2021 in case bearing M.T. 1358/2018 wherein the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, North-East, Karkardooma, Delhi, directed the Petitioner/Husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent/Wife with effect from the date of filing the petition, i.e. 17.12.2018.

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of the petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that the parties were married on 10.07.1989 and two sons were born to them. Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties in 2013 and it has been alleged that the Respondent/Wife treated the Petitioner/Husband with cruelty. Thereafter, the Petitioner/Husband and the Respondent/Wife started residing separately with the Petitioner living with his elder son and the Respondent living with the younger son.

b) In December 2015, the Respondent/Wife allegedly forcibly entered the property of the Petitioner/Husband and started living in a portion of the house. In 2018, vide Settlement dated 16.08.2018 (notarized on 21.08.2018), the Petitioner/Husband agreed to pay the Respondent/Wife a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

c) On 17.12.2018, the Respondent/Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., along with an application for interim maintenance, wherein she alleged that she had been treated with cruelty and that the Petitioner/Husband was earning Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. This was contested by the Petitioner/Husband who stated that the Respondent/Wife was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and that he himself was an auto driver.

d) Vide Mediation Settlement on 13.01.2020, it was agreed that the Petitioner/Husband would continue giving an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent/Wife. However, vide impugned Order dated 09.11.2021, the Ld. Family Court directed the Petitioner/Husband to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent/Wife per month as an interim maintenance.

e) Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner/Husband has now approached this Court challenging the same by way of the instant revision petition.

3. Mr. Rajinder Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Husband, submits that a settlement dated 16.08.2018 between the Petitioner and the Respondent had already been arrived at wherein the Petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month towards the maintenance of the Respondent. He states that the petition filed by the Respondent/Wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is replete with falsities as she alleges that the Petitioner/Husband is earning more than Rs. 3 lakhs in her main petition, but states that he is earning Rs. 50,000/- in her interim maintenance application.

4. Mr. Mathur submits that in reality, the Respondent/Wife is a money lender and is earning about Rs. 40,000/-, and that the Petitioner/Husband is merely an auto driver earning about Rs. 12,000/- per month and not a businessman as has been alleged by the Respondent/Wife. He states that the impugned Order dated 09.11.2021 is erroneous and is liable to set aside on the ground that it states that no payments have been made till date which is contrary to the fact that the Petitioner herein has been paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Respondent in compliance of the settlement deed dated 16.08.2018. He further states that the Ld. Family Court also erred in not considering the Mediation Settlement dated 13.01.2020 wherein the Respondent/Wife had agreed to accept a payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Husband, therefore, states that the Ld. Family Court has erred in not taking into account either the payments that were being made regularly by the Petitioner/Husband to the Respondent/Wife in compliance of both the settlements between the parties. He further submits that the impugned Order dated 09.11.2021 should be set aside on account of the fact that the Petitioner/Husband is an auto driver earning only Rs. 12,000/- per month and