JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 397read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by petitioner assailing the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi (“Appellate Court”) in the matter of “Ashok Kumar vs. Neetu” in appeal C.A. No. 54/2022 vide which the challenge to order dated 09.02.2022 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistarte-04, Mahila Court-South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (“Trial Court”) in CT No. 317912020 tilted as “Neetu Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.” was dismissed.

2. The brief facts which have given rise to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent herein is the complainant/wife in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) which she had filed against the husband/petitioner herein. The respondent had also filed an application under Section 23 of the DV Act against the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance. The respondent had alleged emotional psychological and physical cruelty against the present petitioner and had also pleaded that she was a housewife who was living with two children and had sought grant of Rs. 35,000/- as interim maintenance. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner herein filed a reply as well as both the parties had filed their income and expenditure affidavits. It is stated that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2022, after hearing both the parties and perusing the documents on record had directed payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month as the maintenance to the respondent.

3. It is stated that the present petitioner is aggrieved by the said order since the income of the petitioner is only Rs. 3,300/-, however, he has the liability of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs) as more than Rs. 8,20,000/- have been taken by mother of the petitioner as loan at the rate two per cent per month from one Sh. Chander Pal Singh which he has to repay along with interest. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court failed to take note of the evidence filed by the present petitioner against the respondent regarding the cruelty and infidelity committed by the respondent against the petitioner/revisionist. It is also stated that the order was impugned before the learned Appellate Court, but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2022.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the order of learned Appellate Court is also perverse since both the courts below had failed to appreciate that it was the petitioner who was aggrieved person and the respondent has misused provisions of law. It is also argued that the Courts below had also failed to appreciate that respondent/wife is more educated than the petitioner/husband and has more earning capacity, and is in fact earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has misinterpreted the bank account statement of the petitioner by incorrectly concluding that the various credit entries ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 6,500/- reflected in the bank account of the petitioner during the period April, 2020 to August, 2020 are not his income and they pertain to collective rent of two months or more paid by one tenant. It is stated that the learned Trial Court also wrongly applied the impractical and hypothetical monthly income formula and thereby relying on the current minimum wages described by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 18.06.2021, and directed him to pay maintenance on the basis of minimum wages of skilled labourer. It is stated that the minimum wages will be payable to an employee employed in an employment specified in para one or para two of the schedule of the said Act and not a person who is unemployed. It is also argued that the courts below wrongly held that the petitioner has skill of being a driver and has monthly