The legal principle established is that a wife is entitled to the same standard of living as in her matrimonial home and that 25% of the husband's salary would be a reasonable maintenance allowance.

JUDGMENT

Suvir Sehgal, J. (Oral) - Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') challenging the order dated 21.02.2022 passed in complaint No.67/2019 by learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DV Act') and the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in CRA-52-2022 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed.

2. In brief, facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the complainant-aggrieved person (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.1') has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act averring that she was married to the petitioner on 08.02.2017 and huge amount was spent on the marriage functions and sufficient dowry was given to the petitioner as well as his relations as per the financial capacity and status of the parties. But from the very beginning, the petitioner and his relations have been harassing, humiliating and assaulting respondent No.1 as they were not satisfied with the dowry. Demand of a luxury car besides gold ornaments were made and when respondent No.1 was unable to fulfill it, she was treated with cruelty. The attitude of her in-laws did not improve even after the birth of the son. On 25.02.2019, she came to know that petitioner is in an extra marital affair. Her confrontation led to her physical assault and soon thereafter, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home with her minor son, who is in a primary school. When she demanded maintenance from the petitioner, he flatly refused. She has also stated that the petitioner has been filing false Income Tax Returns after getting her signatures in order to avoid payment of maintenance. She has claimed that he is working as S.S.E. in Northern Railway, Jagadhri Workshop and getting a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-. The complainant has sought a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- for herself, Rs.20,000/- for her minor son besides litigation expenses. Along with the complaint, she has also filed an application for interim relief. Upon being served, the petitioner has filed his reply, admitted the relationship between the parties, while denying the allegations. He has not denied his employment with the Railways, but has submitted that out of his salary, he is paying EMI's and meeting expenses of his aged mother as well as unmarried sister besides paying rent and is not left with any money. He has claimed that respondent No.1 deserted him without any reason. Vide impugned order dated 21.02.2022, JMIC, Yamunanagar accepted the application filed by respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance, as noticed above, which has been upheld by the appellate Court. Both the orders are being impugned herein.

3. By referring to the Income Tax Returns Acknowledgments, Annexure P-8, counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent No.1 is earning and has sufficient means to support herself. She submits that the petitioner, who is a government employee, is taking care of dependant family members including his aged mother, therefore, the grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- is unjustified.

4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the counsel and perused the paper book and the material appended therewith with her able assistance.

5. There is no dispute about the marital ties between the parties and the birth of a child. There are allegations levelled by both the warring parties against each other, which will be examined by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage. The mere fact that the respondent No.1 is allegedly earning, though this fact has been denied by her, and is an Income Tax Payee, does not disentitle her to claim maintenance.