The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, the consideration of minimum wage for determining the respondent's income, and the wife's capability of earning not disentitling her from maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.8.2022, passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Shimla vide which the petition under Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. for seeking interim maintenance was allowed and the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was granted to the respondent (Petitioner before the learned Principal Judge) from the date of application till final disposal of the main petition. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month. It was asserted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 5-6th March 2018 at Village Kharoonwala, Post Office Bhararighat, Sub-Tehsil Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. The parties resided together after the marriage. The respondent and his family members started harassing the petitioner after about two months of the marriage without any reason. Daily necessities were denied to the petitioner. The respondent and his family members asked the petitioner to persuade her parents to give her more dowry. The stridhan gifted to the petitioner was also retained by the respondent and his family members. The behaviour of the respondent deteriorated with time. He physically and mentally tortured the petitioner and abused her in filthy language. The petitioner made a complaint to the Women's Police Station, New Shimla on 3.4.2021. The petitioner has no source of income, whereas the respondent is working as a Chartered Accountant at Vikasnagar at a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. He has no liability and no other person to maintain except the petitioner. Hence, the petition seeking the maintenance.

3. The petition was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, the petitioner not having come to the Court with clean hands and the petitioner being barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. The contents of the petition were denied on merits; however, the relationship between the parties was not disputed. It was asserted that the respondent never maltreated or harassed the petitioner. The petitioner had an extramarital affair and she used to talk regularly to same person. She also used to exchange video calls. The petitioner suffered from psychological problems which were not disclosed to the respondent at the time of the marriage. She would remain alone in the room for hours and come out of the room to have food or use the washroom. The sister-in-law of the respondent used to take care of the household chores and the petitioner never helped her. The respondent took care of the medical expenses of the petitioner. The police tried to settle the matter; however, the petitioner was bent upon harassing the respondent and his family members. The petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own will and she is not entitled to any maintenance. She is an able-bodied person having the qualification of a B.Ed. and she can easily maintain herself. It was specifically denied that the stridhan of the petitioner was taken by the respondent or his family members. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed.

5. An application seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month was filed by the petitioner which was opposed by the respondent.

6. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla held that the relationship between the parties was not disputed. It was also not disputed that the petitioner was unemployed and was dependent upon her parents for her daily needs. There was no proof that the respondent was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The plea of the respondent that the petitioner ha