The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. An able-bodied person is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to reasonably maintain his wife and child, and cannot plead financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') has been allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month besides litigation expenses to the respondent.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 03.02.2013 at Samalkha. Out of said wedlock, one male child was also born on 31.07.2014. Some differences arose between the parties. The petitioner-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, which was contested by the respondent by way of filing written statement. Along with written statement, the respondent-wife also filed an application for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses for herself and her minor son. Petitioner filed reply to the application and the respondent-wife was awarded maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month vide order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat.

3. Aggrieved by said order of award of maintenance, the petitioner-husband has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of maintenance is on the higher side whereas there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner was having income from rent. Learned counsel further submits that the mother of the petitioner is widow, old aged lady and is suffering from various ailments. Not only she needs financial support but care also by considering her old age as there is no other family member to look after her. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent-wife is well educated and possessing degree of M.A., B.Ed. and is also earning handsome amount by way of giving tuitions to the students at home but this aspect has not been considered. The respondent-wife has also filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court at Delhi, which is still pending. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not earning any amount and as such, the maintenance be reduced to some reasonable amount.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.

6. The facts relating to marriage between the parties, birth of child out of said wedlock, filing of divorce petition by the petitioner-husband and filing of application for maintenance by the respondent-wife are not disputed.

7. While filing written statement by the respondent-wife, an application for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses was also moved for herself and her minor son and both were allowed maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Order of granting maintenance has been challenged on the ground that the same is on the excessive side as the petitioner is not having any source of income and has to support his old mother also.

8. It has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 09.10.2015 that the respondent-wife has placed on record certain photographs of the properties of petitioner-husband but those documents could not be taken into consideration as documentary proof of income of the parties but by considering that the husband being able bodied and young person can earn sufficient income, respondent-wife was held entitled to Rs. 5000/- for herself and Rs. 5000/- for her minor son per month as maintenance from the date of filing of application. The petitioner-husband was also held liable to pay Rs. 3000/- as one time litigation expenses to the respondent-wife.

9. While arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has