Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-6-2010, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and by the judgment dated 19-1-2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this court. By the former judgment, the learned Magistrate had directed the petitioner to pay a monetary relief of $ 2000 per month, or an equivalent amount in Indian Currency, to the respondent from the date of presentation of the application i.e. 9.1.2007, and to pay $ 2500, or an equivalent amount thereof, for the expenses of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short); by the latter judgment, the learned Judge has upheld the judgment dated 29.6.2010, and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-1-2002 the petitioner No.1 Sukrit Verma, and the respondent No.2, Rupal Khullar, were married, at New Delhi, according to the Hindu customs and rites. They left for United States of America (`USA' for short) on 6-6-2002. They continued to live there till January, 2006. According to the husband, the respondent wife refused to return back to USA, to live with him, for the reasons best known to her. However, according to the respondent wife, she refused to go back with him for the reason that while she was staying in the USA, with him, she was subjected to acts of domestic violence. Therefore, she had no desire to join him back in the USA. In January, 2007, the respondent wife filed a petition under Section 9(6) and 37(2)(d) of the Act before the learned Magistrate. In order to buttress her contentions, the respondent wife examined herself as a witness, and submitted 86 documents. On the other hand, the husband examined himself as a witness, and submitted 115 documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 29-6-2010, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition in the terms aforementioned. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed an appeal under section 29 of the Act. However, vide judgment dated 19-1-2011, the learned Judge confirmed the judgment dated 29-6-2010, and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition before this court.

3. Mr. Mohit Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:

Firstly, that the learned Magistrate, and the learned Judge have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. They have erroneously concluded that the petitioner husband had committed acts of cruelty towards the respondent wife.

Secondly, both the learned courts below have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner husband is unemployed; he does not have means to give the monetary relief as directed by the court. Therefore, the maintenance allowance is unreasonable.

Thirdly, the respondent wife herself is a renowned artist, who earns about Rs.1 lac per month by selling her paintings.

Fourthly, learned courts below have erred in calculating the maintenance in terms of US dollors, instead of Rupees. In fact, the learned Magistrate should have calculated the maintenance in terms of Rupees.

Lastly, relying on the case of Sanjay Bhardwaj & Others vs. State & Another, (Cr.M.C. No.491/2009 decided by Delhi High Court on 27-8-2010), the learned counsel has contended that “there is no requirement in law for the husband to maintain his wife. For, the Court cannot tell the husband to beg, borrow, or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning”. Thus, according to the learned counsel, in the present case, since the husband is unemployed, since the wife is earning by selling her paintings, the husband cannot be forced to maintain his wife.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent wife, has raised the following contentio