Maintenance must be assessed based on household income and number of dependents, ensuring fair living standards for the petitioner post-separation.

JUDGMENT

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The present revision petition has been filed under Section 19 (4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 03.10.2019 passed in Interim Application No. 01/19 in MT. No. 1053/17 by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Family Court in the impugned order, are as under:

"5....It is not in dispute that marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on 24.04.2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated but no child is born from their wedlock. It is also not in dispute that there are certain differences between the parties, due to which they have been living separately.

6. The petitioner has claimed that she has no source of income and completely dependent upon her parents for her day to day needs and expenses whereas respondent is working as Senior Executive (Accounts) in M/s Motherson Sumi Infotech & Designs Limited, Noida and drawing monthly salary of approximately Rs.52,000/- per month with other perks and benefits. He is also getting Rs.10,000/- as rent from ground floor property. The respondent has no other liability except to maintain the petitioner but he has deliberately neglected to maintain her.

7. The respondent has controverted the said plea and averred that petitioner is a Teacher and also giving home tuitions and earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month but has not adduced any cogent proof to support the said plea. In the absence of any cogent proof, the plea of respondent that petitioner is earning Rs.35,000/- per month is discarded."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was granted ad interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month vide order dated 19.04.2018, however later, on the receipt of documents filed by the respondent including his bank statements for the last three years as well as Form 16 Part B of his IT returns for the financial year 2017-18, the same was revised to Rs.7,300/- vide the impugned order, even though earlier, the respondent's application seeking review of the order dated 19.04.2018 was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2018. It is submitted that the respondent had challenged the orders dated 19.04.2018 and 12.07.2018 by way of CRL.M.C. No. 257/2019 before this Court, but the petition also came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2019.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is being assailed primarily on the ground that while apportioning the shares of the parties, the Family Court has incorrectly included the parents of the respondent in the list of dependents and divided the family cake amongst four persons instead of two. It is submitted that the father of the respondent is a pensioner having retired from Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India and as such, is not dependent on the respondent. It is also submitted that the respondent's mother is living alongwith his father.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly confirmed that the respondent's father is a pensioner. He has, however, submitted that the petitioner being a Teacher is well-qualified and is capable of earning. It is also submitted that the petitioner is giving home tuitions.

6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent did not bring any material on record in support of his claim. The respondent's submission was rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunita