A wife's past employment does not negate her current inability to maintain herself; interim maintenance must reflect the husband's financial capacity and the wife's needs.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

1. The instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘impugned order’) praying for modification of the said order for enhancing the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order. Vide the impugned order; the petitioner No. 2 (minor son herein) has been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month to be paid by the respondent (herein) from the date of the application alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- while the petitioner No. 1-wife was denied interim maintenance. The petitioners (herein) had filed a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Family Court, Karnal stating that they are the wife and minor son of the respondent (herein) and are unable to maintain themselves and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to them.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has iterated that the learned Family Court has erred in determining the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to the petitioners (herein) insofar as the income of the respondent is concerned. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner No. 1 has never been employed and has no independent source of income. Despite this fact, the learned Family Court has not granted any interim maintenance to petitioner No. 1-wife and only awarded a paltry sum to petitioner No. 2 (minor son) which is grossly inadequate. It has been further iterated that, in the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 is experiencing significant hardship and obstacles in maintaining a stable life. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the petitioners have an equal right to a similar standard of living as the respondent. It has been further submitted that the Family Court ought to have considered the disparity between the actual income of the respondent and the paltry sum awarded to petitioner No. 2, which is grossly inadequate to meet even the basic necessities of life. It has been further argued that the sole ground on which the maintenance was denied to the petitioner No. 1 (herein)-wife is that she was employed/working as Director of one company namely M/s Reek Employee Screening Solution Private Ltd. and was earning sufficiently, is erroneous and without giving due regard to the real facts of the case. Learned counsel has submitted that the said employment was merely nominal/titular in nature and pertains to the period before the petitioner No. 1 got married with the respondent. Learned counsel has further submitted that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court is grossly inadequate. Thus, the enhancement of the interim maintenance amount is prayed for.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Family Court has determined the quantum of interim maintenance as awarded to petitioner No. 2 (herein), in the right perspective and after giving due regard to the income of the respondent. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner-wife is working as a Director in M/s Reek Employee Screening Solution Private Ltd and earning handsomely and hence the Family Court has rightly declined the interim maintenance to her. Hence, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324; relevant whereof reads as under:

“II Payment of interim Maintenance The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third proviso to Section 125 CrPC 1973 (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible. be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice on the contesting spouse Despite the statutory pr