Father's maintenance obligation to minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. independent of mother's income; unemployment plea rejected for able-bodied qualified person with contradictory employment evidence; quantum upheld as reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MAHRA, J.

1. Both the criminal revisions arise out of the same judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, District Haridwar in O.S. No. 161 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the minor children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was partly allowed and the father was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.6,500/- per month to each of the two minor children. Since both the revisions emanate from the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Revision No. 626 of 2022 has been preferred by the father, Dheeraj Kapoor, seeking setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in awarding maintenance beyond his financial capacity and without properly considering the income of the mother. Criminal Revision No. 629 of 2022 has been filed by the minor children through their mother, seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between Dheeraj Kapoor and Poonam Kapoor was solemnized on 17.04.2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born, namely Ridhi Kapoor (daughter) and Shaurya Kapoor (son). Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately, and the minor children have been residing with their mother. The minor children, through their mother, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that the father was addicted to alcohol and had subjected their mother to physical and mental cruelty. It was alleged that on multiple occasions she was assaulted, her character was maligned, and she was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that the father was earning about Rs.90,000/- per month while working in an insurance company and had sufficient means to maintain the children. Maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month was sought.

4. The father contested the application, denying all allegations of cruelty and neglect. He claimed that the mother was living separately without sufficient cause and that he was unemployed due to multiple litigations initiated against him. He relied upon various judicial precedents, including Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, Koushik v. Sau Sangeeta Koushik, Ankit Saha v. State of U.P., and Sanjeev Gupta v. Shalini Gupta, to contend that maintenance must be commensurate with actual income and cannot be granted mechanically.

5. The mother of the minor children appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the allegations made in the application. She filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. During cross-examination, she admitted that a salary of Rs.93,991/- had been credited to her account and that she had not filed income tax returns along with the affidavit.

6. The father, in his affidavit and oral evidence, claimed that he was unemployed since 2017. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had joined IFFCO Tokio under an offer letter sh