The court upheld joint parental responsibility for child support, clarifying that maintenance cannot be denied based on financial hardship without thorough examination of the parties' abilities.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"In the premises mentioned above, this Hon'ble Court:

(A) Be graciously pleased and kind to quash and set aside the orders dated 10 Aug 2021 and 04 Aug 2021 passed by Ld Principal Judge Sh Praveen Kumar, Ld. Family Court South, Saket, New Delhi in maintenance case being M.No.108 of 2012 (Mahika Sharma & Anr. vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma) u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

(B) Pass such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice."

2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated August 10, 2021, and August 04, 2021, in Maintenance Case (M. No.108/2012) in the case titled Km. Mahika Sharma @ Manu Sharma & Anr. vs. Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma.

3. As per the facts of the present case the respondents on August 17, 2012, filed a maintenance case being M. No. 108/2012 in Family Court Saket, New Delhi.

4. On October 14, 2015, interim maintenance order of Rs.20,000/- was passed by the Family Court (hereinafter referred to as `FC'). Md. Azam Ansari learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner till date, has paid a huge sum of around Rs.17 lakhs by taking loans from friends and relatives.

5. Mr. Ansari submitted that upon challenging the aforesaid interim order dated October 14, 2015, before this Court, the same was dismissed on the ground of delay, however, vide order dated February 06, 2019, this Court has clarified that it has not observed anything on merits of the case and it is to be decided finally by the FC.

6. On May 11, 2021, a direction was given by this Court to FC to decide the maintenance case on merits, if Rs.3 lakhs are paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that vide an Order dated July 12, 2021, this Court clarified that Rs.20 lakhs as claimed by the respondents are disputed.

7. Mr. Ansari contended that the Family Court Judge wrote an email to this Court complaining about a few days' late payments of Rs.2 lakhs by the petitioner to the respondent which resulted in strong apprehension of judicial bias. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Transfer Petition vide no. TP (Crl) 40/2021, seeking transfer of maintenance case to some other FC on the ground of apprehension of judicial bias. This Court finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner was pleased to issue a notice in the said transfer petition.

8. According to Mr. Ansari, the defence of the petitioner was again struck off on July 23, 2021, for 5 days late payment of Rs.50,000/- observing that the FC cannot extend the date fixed by this Court, despite the fact that an application was moved by the petitioner for extension of time which was disposed of on July 27, 2021, by this Court observing about the above-stated late payment. Thus, the delay was impliedly condoned by this Court.

9. On July 24, 2021, the review petition was filed before the FC, and before the review could be decided, all facts including the order of this Court dated July 27, 2021, were brought to the notice of the FC wherein an Order dated August 04, 2021, was passed dismissing the review petition with a punitive cost of Rs.75,000/-. In this regard, Mr. Ansari stated that it is beyond understanding as to how a review being a statutory remedy can be dismissed with such