Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The marriage between petitioner-husband-Vishal Saxena and respondent-wife-Swati Bhatnagar was solemnized on 26.10.2009. After marriage, they resided together as husband and wife at Jaipur (Rajasthan) and thereafter they shifted to Vietnam. No child was born from the said wedlock. Some differences arose between the parties. The petitioner-husband and his family members started ill-treating and harassing the respondent-wife for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The parents of respondent-wife made all efforts to reconcile the matter but to no avail. The respondent was given beatings and was tortured physically as well as mentally and ultimately she returned from Vietnam. Thereafter, the respondent-wife lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his family members, on the basis of which, FIR No. 58 dated 15.6.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 56 Gurgaon. She also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance on the ground of having no independent source of income, whereas, petitioner-husband was working with KBS Global Pvt. Ltd and other Global Companies and was earning Rs. 5 lacs per month. He was having two houses besides rental income of Rs. 80,000/- per month. Reply to the said petition was filed by the petitioner-husband denying all the allegations. The stand taken by the petitioner-husband was that it was the respondent-wife, who had left the matrimonial home, whereas, he was not at fault. He also denied allegations of demand of dowry as well as harassment. It was also averred by the petitioner-husb and in the reply that he was not getting any job due to multiple litigations and was unable to find any work also. With regard to his income, he also averred that his monthly income never exceeded Rs. 35,000/-.

2. After considering the submissions made by both the parties, learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon by relying upon the stand of petitioner-husband of getting salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 1.6.2013 vide order dated 6.4.2015, which is the subject matter of challenge here in the present petition.

Notice of motion was issued in the case on 8.5.2015.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not paid even a single penny after passing of order dated 6.4.2015, vide which, the amount of maintenance was ordered to be paid w.e.f. 1.6.2013. Respondent-wife is leading a starving life as she did not have any source of income to earn her livelihood. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the arrears of maintenance due as on today is Rs. 6 lacs approximately.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not earning anything and being unemployed he is not in a position to pay even a single penny. The amount awarded by the lower Court is contrary to provisions as the same cannot be awarded unless and until husband is having source of income.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to deposit some of the arrears but he has shown his reluctance and submitted that as the petitioner is not earning anything, therefore, he is not in a position to pay the same.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order and other documents available on the file.

7. The facts with regard to marriage between the parties, filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarding of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance by the lower Court have not been disputed. Although in the petition filed by the respondent-wife, it has been mentioned that petitioner-husband was working with KBS Global Private Limited and other Global Companies and was earning Rs. 5 lacs per month and also owned two houses besides rental income of Rs. 80000/- per month. The stand taken by the petitioner-husband