The court emphasized that the interim maintenance should be adequate, fair, and reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living of the aggrieved person. The court also highlighted the presumption that an able-bodied husband is capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - CRL.REV.P.162/2021 has been filed by the husband challenging the Order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge-5, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, wherein interim maintenance of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded to the wife and minor child (Rs. 62,500/- each) from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. September 2016.

2. CRL.REV.P.194/2021 has been filed by the wife challenging Order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge-5, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, seeking an enhancement of the interim maintenance that was awarded.

3. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of both the petitions are as follows:

a) It is stated that marriage between Jaspreet Singh (hereinafter, 'the husband') and Swaneet Kukreja (hereinafter, 'the wife') was solemnized on 12.12.2010 as per Sikh rites and customs, and on 17.02.2014, a girl child was born to them. Due to differences that cropped up between the husband and wife, the wife has been residing separately from the husband since July 2016, along with their minor child.

b) On 20.09.2016, an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'DV act') was filed by the wife against the husband. an application seeking interim maintenance had been also been filed by the wife. Vide order dated 21.02.2018, the Ld. M.M. granted interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month, in addition to education expenses of the minor child.

c) Both the parties filed cross-appeals against this Order dated 21.02.2018 before the Ld. aSJ. Vide impugned Order dated 06.03.2021, the Ld. aSJ allowed the appeal of the wife and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 45,000/- per month to a total of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month (with both the wife and the minor child receiving Rs. 62,500/-).

d) aggrieved by the Order dated 06.03.2021, the husband and wife have approached this Court by way of cross-appeals seeking revision of the impugned Order.

4. Mr. Inder Bir Singh, learned Counsel for the husband, at the outset, submits that that till date he has paid about Rs. 27 lakhs by way of interim maintenance to the wife and his daughter, despite not having access to the education of the daughter. He states that the fresh income affidavits that had been filed by the husband were not taken into consideration by the Ld. appellate Court while passing the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021. Mr. Singh further submits that the said Order is bad in law as well as facts

5. Mr. Singh submits that the enhancement of interim maintenance by the Ld. appellate Court has been done solely on the basis of the husband's 'capacity to earn' and not his actual earning. He submits that the Ld. appellate Court has failed to take into account the fact that the husband had lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, not only was the impugned Order erroneous on facts but, as per the learned Counsel, it was also erroneous on law because it disregarded the criteria for deciding the quantum of interim maintenance that had been laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

6. The learned Counsel for the husband argues that the wife has adopted various delaying tactics before the Ld. appellate Court and has resorted to filing allegedly false complaints against the husband, and the Ld. appellate Court has failed to record the same in its impugned Order. Mr. Singh states that the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month is an oppressive amount, especially in view of the fact that the husband has been unemployed since august 2020 and has been unable to secure a job. He states that the impugned Order has only been rendered so as to cater to the timeline for disposal that had been set by this Court and is biased against the husband. He further submits that Ld. appellate Court has failed to appreciate the material on record and has arrived at an enlarged figure of income