In matrimonial disputes, a spouse's decrease in income is insufficient to evade maintenance obligations; earning by the other spouse does not negate this responsibility.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

CM APPL. 11898/2020 (Delay of 90 days in filing appeal)

1. By this application, the appellant seeks condonation of 90 days' delay in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 90 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2020

4. Ms. Anita Saxena (hereinafter referred to as `appellant') has filed the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2019 passed by the learned Family Judge, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `HMA'), whereby the learned Principal Judge had granted the pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA to the appellant in the sum of Rs.1,500/-, in addition to Rs.8,500/- under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') which Mr. Ajit Saxena (hereinafter referred to as `respondent') is already paying.

5. The appellant and the respondent got married on 27th November, 2010 according to Hindu rites and customs and no child was born from the said wedlock. Differences arose between the parties and the appellant filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance. The matter was settled in Lok Adalat wherein the husband-Ajit Saxena voluntarily undertook to pay an amount of Rs.8,500/- per month to the appellant and the petition was disposed of vide order dated 08th July, 2017. During the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr. P. C., the parties were referred to the Counselor and they mutually agreed to live together in the matrimonial home in Mayapuri, Delhi. The appellant joined the company of the respondent on 27th March, 2017 and resided together till 08th July, 2017. Differences again crept up as according to the appellant, the parents of the respondent always taunted her and her family members and pressurized her day in and day out to bring more cash and luxurious items from her parental home. She also claimed that she was always ill-treated by the respondent-husband and his family members and so also her parents or other family members, whenever they visited her in-law's house.

6. The respondent then filed a Divorce petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of HMA against the appellant on 05th July, 2017. The appellant herein sought interim pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA. The appellant claimed that during her stay in matrimonial home, she came to know about the lavish standard of living of the respondent. The respondent is working as Art Director at Vermillion Communication Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.70,000/- as per his appointment letter dated 04th July, 2016. He also works on contractual basis to design official websites for three to four Companies and earns Rs.25,000/- from per website. He has a monthly income of about Rs.1,00,000/-. In addition, he has LIC policies in his name for which he is paying a handsome amount of premium. He has also visited abroad which can be verified from his passport. The respondent has also been provided with a chauffeur-driven car by his Company and he maintains expensive gadgets, like mobile, laptop etc. He has other amenities, like refrigerators, air-conditioner and other electronic gadgets in his house. He has bank accounts in ICICI Bank, Mayapuri Branch; Bank of India, Mayapuri Industrial Area Branch; Canara Bank, Basanth Lok Vasant Vihar Branch; and State Bank of India, Subhash Nagar. It is claimed that the respondent is a man of high standard of living