The determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the parties and the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Order dated 20.06.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Mahila Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No. 200/1 (464853/16) and Order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the additional Sessions Judge - 05, South East, Saket Courts, directing the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- per month to the Respondent herein as maintenance.

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to this petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 12.12.1997. as differences arose between the two, the Respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'DV act'), before the Ld. Mahila Court in the year 2012. an FIR had also been registered by the Respondent against the Petitioner alleging cruelty and cheating, and this had prompted the Petitioner to move this Court for anticipatory bail. Therein, this Court had directed the Petitioner to a pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month towards maintenance to the Respondent.

b) Vide Order dated 26.06.2015, the Ld. Mahila Court, exercising its power under Section 23 of the DV act, had increased the interim maintenance to Rs. 1,00,000/- per month in favour of the Respondent from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 23.07.2012.

c) This Order dated 26.06.2015 was challenged before the Ld. Sessions Courts. It is stated that vide judgement dated 20.09.2021, the Ld. Sessions Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 35,000/- in addition to the interim maintenance awarded by the Ld. Mahila Court and that the same would be towards alternate accommodation from the date of filing of complaint till disposal of the case before the Ld. Trial Court.

d) aggrieved by Orders dated 26.06.2015 and 20.09.2021, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition, assailing the two impugned Orders.

3. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Orders of the Ld. Mahila Court and the Ld. Sessions Court have disregarded the financial constraints of the Petitioner by misreading the data available on record. He has stated that the reading of 'liabilities' of the Petitioner as 'assets' has led to the Courts below to arrive at the inflated figure of maintenance. Mr. Vinaik has submitted that this misreading has also led the Courts below to believe that the Petitioner has concealed his true assets and this selective reading glosses over the fact that the Petitioner has taken loans and has utilised his savings for litigation expenses.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted before this Court that the income of the Petitioner has been misinterpreted and that a temporary bank interest income resulting from a one-time sale of property, loan taken and maturity of an old LIC policy only in the financial year 2013-2014 cannot be considered as the basis for calculating the regular monthly income of the Petitioner. Furthermore, Mr. Vinaik has submitted that there has been a misreading of the family holdings of the Petitioner as minor shareholding in various companies, including assets which are disputed/under litigation or non-functional.

5. Mr. Vinaik has submitted that the admissions in the affidavit of the Respondent have been largely ignored. He has stated that the wife of the Petitioner is a designer for large television networks, earning a handsome amount of money and has claimed that her annual income is only Rs. 2 lakhs and this is contradictory to her claim of her monthly rent being Rs. 45,000/-. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited various instances to showcase that the Respondent has been concealing her income.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the impugned Order dated 20.09.2021 ignores the law laid do