JUDGMENT : 

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 19 sub section 4 of the Family Courts Act, challenging the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021, titled as “Smt. Chanda Singh vs. Parinay Singh”, whereby the learned court directed the Revisionist to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) per month to Respondent No.2 under Section 125 of the Code. The limited challenge in this Revision is to grant and quantum of interim maintenance.

2. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.11.2019 according to Hindu rites. After a short period of cohabitation, matrimonial discord arose between the parties, and they started living separately.

3. Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021 before the Family Court, Dehradun, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking monthly maintenance. She asserted that the Revisionist, being gainfully employed, had sufficient means to maintain her, whereas she had no independent source of income.

4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Respondent No.2 moved an application for interim maintenance. The Revisionist filed a reply and an affidavit of assets in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajnesh v. Neha” (2021) 2 SCC 324.

5. By the impugned order dated 15.07.2022, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of rupees twenty thousand per month to Respondent No.2 from the date of the application. The learned court observed that Respondent No.2 lacked independent means, whereas the Revisionist was earning a regular salary and possessed the financial capacity to pay such maintenance.

6. Aggrieved, the Revisionist filed the present Criminal Revision along with an application seeking condonation of delay. By order dated 22.07.2024, the delay was condoned. Thereafter, the Revision has been taken up for final hearing.

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable. It was urged that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the actual income of the Revisionist as reflected in the salary certificate and affidavit of assets. According to counsel, the Revisionist’s net income, after statutory deductions and loan liabilities, is significantly lower than what has been presumed by the Family Court.

8. It was contended that Respondent No.2 is an educated and skilled individual who earns from tailoring work at her parental home. Learned counsel argued that the learned Family Court ignored her earning capacity and incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that she was wholly dependent upon the Revisionist.

9. It was further argued that the marriage itself was of a very short duration and the parties separated within a brief span of time. The conduct of Respondent No.2, it was submitted, shows that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. According to counsel, in such circumstances, the quantum of rupees twenty thousand per month is excessive and disproportionate to the Revisionist’s means.

10. Learned counsel for Revisionist submitted that the impugned order does not reflect due application of mind to the material placed on record, particularly the Revisionist’s liabilities, salary structure, and the contradiction in Respondent No.2’s financial disclosures. It was argued that the learned court has mechanically fixed an amount without recording reasons supported by evidence.

11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and submitted that the Revisionist is in regular employment and earns a stable salary, as is evident from the documents placed before the Family Court. It was argued that the Revisionist has adequate financial capacity and has suppressed portions of his true earnings.

12. It was contended that Respondent No.2 is