The court held that a husband has the obligation to maintain his wife and children, and the wife has the right to seek interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

Sri C B Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prachish Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Ms Mahima Pahwa, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. Challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 6.4.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.0000092 of 2016, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, affirming the order dated 9.3.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vth, Lucknow in a Complaint No.3016 of 2015, granting interim maintenance of Rs.55,000/- per month in favour of respondent no.2 and her minor son, aged about five years.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the marriage of revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 17.11.2010 at Noida and out of the wedlock, one son Master Anand was born on 22.2.2014. After marriage, initially couple lived at Noida for few days and thereafter, they shifted to USA where they lived together for about two years. As the revisionist was admitted in Indian School of Business for doing his Masters degree, the couple returned back to Hyderabad and after completion of the said course at Hyderabad, they started living at New Delhi.

4. According to respondent no.2, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the revisionist and under compelling circumstances, she started living with her parents. On 17.8.2015, respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act of 2005') against her husband and his other family members. She also filed an application under Section 23 read with Section 20 of the said Act, claiming interim order of grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1 lakh per month. In this application, it has been contended by the wife that her husband is a well qualified person having two Masters Degree, is earning approximately Rs.45 lakhs per annum and, therefore, she be awarded suitable maintenance. She has also submitted that earlier she was working and was getting Rs.20,000/- per month, but presently, she is not working as she has to take care of her minor son. In the application, various instances of cruelty meted out to her have been quoted by respondent no.2 and for brevity, at this stage, this Court is not referring to all those pleadings.

5. Counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) that learned Magistrate has erred in law in granting interim maintenance to respondent no.2 and likewise, the order passed by the appellate court is also not in accordance with law wherein the order of learned Magistrate has been affirmed without appreciating the correct facts;

(ii) that respondent no.2 had never lived at Lucknow and as such Lucknow Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case filed by her under the provisions of the Act of 2005. In her entire pleadings, nowhere it has been stated that as to how respondent no.2 came to Lucknow and filed the case at Lucknow;

(iii) that the pleadings as made by the revisionist have been completely ignored by the two courts below;

(iv) that the income of the revisionist, while he was serving in USA, has nothing to do with his salary in India and the said income cannot be considered, at all, for determination of interim maintenance to respondent no.2;

(v) respondent no.2 is living separately of her own without there being any justification or sufficient cause;

(vi) that even as on date, the revisionist is willing to keep respondent no.2 with him and his minor son aged about 5 years;

(vii) that respondent no.2 has done her Post Graduation in Advertisement and Marketing and as such, she is in a position to maintain herself;

(viii) that personal allegations levelled against the revisionist, including consuming of liquor with his friends, are not correct.

(ix) that the interim maintenance awarded in favour of respondent no.2 is on the higher side and, under no stretch of imagination, such amount can be awarded as interim maintenance; and

(x) that t