IMPORTANT POINT
The responsibility of the father to maintain the child and the right of the child to be maintained as per the status of the father. The court should ensure that a child should not be made to suffer due to disputes between the parents.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 8082/2024

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction for a stay on the execution petition filed by the respondent, being Execution Petition No.135/2022, during the pendency of the present petition.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition itself is being taken up today for final hearing, therefore, this application is rendered infructuous. The same is, accordingly, disposed of. The next date of hearing, that is, 08.04.2024 stands cancelled.

CRL.REV.P. 158/2022 & CRL.M.A. 5192/2022

3. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 21.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Family Court') in Maintenance Petition, being Mt. No.206/2018, titled Master Avyan v. Sachin Singh, directing the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the respondent herein from the date of filing of the application before the learned Family Court till the disposal of the maintenance petition and, thereafter, to pay the said amount regularly from the month of January, 2022.

4. The petitioner and the mother of the respondent were married on 14.12.2006. From the said wedlock, the respondent was born on 02.06.2014. Due to the marital discord between the petitioner and the mother of the respondent, the petitioner claims that the mother of the respondent left the matrimonial home in the month of March, 2015. The mother of the respondent also filed a number of complaints against the petitioner, resulting in the registration of an FIR against the petitioner. She also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

5. In the year 2018, the respondent, through his mother, filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. An application was also filed on behalf of the respondent seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner. The said application has been allowed by the learned Family Court by way of the Impugned Order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that, in her affidavit of assets and income dated 27.09.2018, the mother of the respondent has herself disclosed her net income to be Rs.1.70 lacs per month, after payment of tax. He submits that, in spite of the same, the learned Family Court in the Impugned Order has proceeded on the basis that the income of the mother of the respondent is approximately Rs.1 lac per month.

7. He further submits that, in the same affidavit, the mother of the respondent had also disclosed the income of the petitioner as only Rs.1.75 lacs per month. In spite of the same, the learned Family Court has determined the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3.18 lacs per month for the purposes of determining the maintenance payable to the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there would have been a gradual increase in the income of the petitioner. He submits that merely because the income of the petitioner had increased to Rs.3.18 lacs as on the date of passing of the Impugned Order, it would not justify maintenance being awarded at the same rate for the past, that is, from the date of the filing of the application. There has to be a gradual increase in the maintenance amount as well.

9. He further submits that the maintenance application was filed by the mother of the respondent out of vengeance and only to settle the inter se property disputes between her and the petitioner. He has explained the same by reading from the petition the following:

"7. That the impugned order has been passed by the Learned Family Court without considering the fact that the respondent/mother is using the minor as a pawn in the litigation in order to get her illegal demands fulfilled from