A wife who is financially self-sufficient is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., especially if she has not approached the court with clean hands.

JUDGMENT

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to press the present revision. Hence this criminal revision is being decided after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA.

2. Heard Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar in Case No.683 of 2019 (Neha Sahu Vs. Ankit Saha), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party no. 2 did not approach the trial court with clean hands by filing her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein she claimed that she is unemployed and has no source of income. When as matter of fact, the opposite party no.2 is a Post- Graduate, a Web Designer by qualification, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 36,000/- per month. Hence, she does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to receive maintenance on this very ground. Despite the aforesaid fact, trial court has awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month merely to balance the income between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that, as per the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance can be awarded to a wife only when she is unable to maintain herself or has no sufficient source of income. It is next submitted that the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents, whereas opposite party no. 2 has no such liability. Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2 before the trial court, which is paper nos. 67–70, wherein the details of her liabilities have been mentioned as "nil." Thus, the sole contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient means to maintain herself, and in such circumstances, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the revisionist.

6. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submits that the amount awarded by the trial to make the parties as equal status to enjoy their lives but could not disputed the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is well educated lady, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 36,000/- per month.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA as well as perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court. A perusal of page no. 15 of the impugned judgment reflects that the opposite party no.2 is a Post- Graduate, a Web Designer by qualification, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 36,000/- per month. The trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not taken into consideration the liability of the revisionist and has awarded Rs. 5000/-per month to make the parties equal status to enjoy.

8. For ready reference,