The court affirmed that a spouse's educational qualifications do not disqualify them from receiving maintenance, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of financial needs and obligations.

JUDGMENT :

(Sumeet Goel, J.)

Vide this common order, two separate criminal revision petitions, bearing numbers CRR(F) 1834 of 2023; and CRR(F) 587 of 2024 filed against, a common order dated 20.11.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, in case bearing No.MNT125/686/2018, are being decided together.

2. The parties in the present case are referred to as husband and wife, in order to ward off any confusion, while appreciating the facts of the case, in view of the interplay of titles in both the above- mentioned criminal revision petitions having been filed against the common order.

3. Facts germane to the adjudication of the present case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.11.2015. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born. It is pertinent that the record and pleadings of the parties do not disclose the date of birth of the minor child. However, a copy of his Aadhar Card filed along with the criminal revision petition shows his date of birth as 26.08.2016. In view of the differences and disputes having arisen between the husband and wife, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the Family Court, Gurugram seeking maintenance for herself and the minor son. The learned Family Court Gurugram vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023 while disposing of the application filed by the wife for grant of maintenance, awarded as the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor son, to be paid by the husband. Besides, the above-mentioned maintenance the learned Family Court ordered that since the husband is already paying rent for the accommodation of wife and minor child, he must continue to bear this obligation in addition to maintenance amount granted.

4. CRR (F) No. 1834 of 2023 is filed by the husband seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Family Court, whereby maintenance has been granted to the wife and minor son. Whereas, CRR (F) No.587 of 2024 is filed by the wife and minor son, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court, vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the record of the case carefully.

6. On behalf of the husband, while impugning the order dated 20.11.2023, it is argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the wife, through her own actions and conduct by living separately from the husband without any valid cause, has disentitled herself from claiming any maintenance from the husband. It is submitted that she frequently sent text messages to her boyfriends and maintained continuous communication/relationships with them as a result of which disputes arose between the husband and wife. It is argued that the husband in pursuance of a complaint filed by the wife with the police had entered into a compromise and took a separate house on rent for wife and child. It is submitted that the respondent is continuing to pay rent for the accommodation where the wife and minor son are living, which started with Rs.10,000/- in the year 2019. It is submitted that the Family Court while passing the impugned order has not spelled out any clear formula for assessing the amount of maintenance as granted to the wife and minor child. It is submitted that the wife being professionally qualified and having been employed in the past prior to marriage, cannot be expected to sit idle and depend solely on the maintenance from the husband. Lastly, it is argued that the Family Court has erred in granting maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, whereas, in view of the long pendency of the petition the Family Court ought to have granted the maintenance from the date of order, especially in view of the fact that the husband has been paying interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court.

7. To the contrary, rebutting the arguments on behalf of the husband, it is argued on b