The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a wife to claim maintenance even if she has personal income but not sufficient to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The judgment also emphasizes the obligation of a litigant to approach the court with complete and true facts and the impermissibility of suppressing or concealing income.

JUDGMENT

Anita Chaudhry, J. - The petitioner assailed the order dated 12.04.2016, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and order passed by the Magistrate on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. The essential facts need a narration. Ritu was married to Amit on 21.10.2003. A daughter was born to them in 2004. The petition seeking maintenance was filed in 2006. The wife pleaded that she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home in June 2006 and had no independent source of income. The husband was a Chartered Accountant and was earning more than Rs.1 lac per month. Besides he owned moveable and immovable property.

3. The husband took an objection that the petition was not maintainable at Batala as the marriage took place in Delhi and before marriage the wife was living in Amritsar. It was pleaded that Ritu was a divorcee and as per his information she had received some amount on settlement with the earlier husband. It was denied that their marriage was solemnized with lot of pomp & show. It was pleaded that since both the parties were divorcees, therefore, their marriage was simple.

4. It was pleaded that petitioner no.1 had beaten his mother and she had taken all the Istridhan with her when she went to attend a wedding in her family. It was pleaded that she had come along with hardcore criminals and had taken the jewellery of his mother after beating her and the police was called and he filed a complaint with the Magistrate in Delhi who directed the police to lodge an FIR. It was pleaded that petitioner no.1 was highly qualified and was carrying on food business from home and she was doing the same business at Batala. It was denied that he was earning Rs. 1 lac per month. It was pleaded that he had not got any clients yet and had no rental income and his income was Rs.7,000/- per month.

5. Both the sides led evidence. The wife examined herself and her brother while the husband examined the Manager from Union Bank who brought the account statement of Vanshika, their daughter. The bank official from Canara Bank brought Ritu's account. The Senior Tax Assistant from the Income Tax Office brought the income tax returns of Ritu from 2007 onwards. Besides this the respondent examined himself. It was stated that an ex parte decree for divorce was granted to the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and petitioner no.1 had filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree after 14 months. It was pleaded that petitioner no.1 was investing in stock market and had a demat account and during the course of this petition, she deliberately and intentionally transferred holding shares to other accounts. It was pleaded that in the last five years huge amounts have been transacted in her account to the tune of Rs.30 lacs and she had independent source of income. It was pleaded that she was paying an annual premium of Rs. 35,000/- on the insurance policy taken from Birla Sun Life and she had three other insurance policies with Bajaj Allianz and the petitioner had concealed facts that she was having income from dividends.

6. The trial Magistrate held that the husband was concealing his income and he had taken his office on rent @ Rs.7,500/- per month and he had suppressed his income and therefore, Rs.10,000/- each was allowed to both the wife and the child from the date of application.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment, a revision was preferred by the husband and it was dismissed.

8. The amount allowed to the wife was stayed by the co-ordinate Bench on 09.11.2017. The petitioner was directed to clear all the amount that was payable to the child. I have heard counsel of both the sides.

9. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the couple was married in October 2003 and the wife left the matrimonial home in January 2006 and six months later a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been filed. It was urged that the wife had concealed her income and she was working from the very beginning and they had produced ample material b