ORDER

% 18.07.2024

1.The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 16.10.2023 (hereafter the ‘ impugned order ’), passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT No. 536/2021.

2.By way of the impugned order, the learned Family Court in a petition filed by respondent under Section 125 of the CrPC, has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance for a sum of ₹25,000/- per month to the respondents, from the date of the filing of the application till the disposal of the maintenance petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s livelihood depends on providing yoga lessons and contends that the learned Family Court has incorrectly assessed his monthly income as ₹50,000/-. Consequently, there was no justifiable basis for awarding ₹25,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents.

4.He submits that Respondent No. 1 has falsely claimed that the petitioner operates a Patanjali Yoga Vidya School in Uttarakhand, allegedly earning ₹18 lakhs per annum. He submits that he has not earned any income from the school as no collaboration was established. Additionally, he submits that the petitioner had made efforts to restore conjugal rights with Respondent No. 1 and sought custody of their minor child, Respondent No. 2. However, Respondent No. 1 refused to reconcile or hand over the child’s custody.

5.At this stage, the petitioner has not been able to show that Respondent No.1 is working. She is also having custody of the seven-year-old minor child / Respondent No.2.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an average monthly income of ₹12,000 from part time jobs and holding yoga sessions.

7.The learned Family Court, in the impugned order, observed that while the petitioner claimed an income of ₹12,000 per month, his bank statements from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 indicated a significantly higher income. The court also took into account photographs suggesting that the petitioner was living a luxurious lifestyle. Conversely, the bank statements of Respondent No. 1 did not show any substantial income, underscoring the financial disparity between the parties.

8.It is common knowledge and has been observed by this Court in many cases that it is a normal tendency of the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes to not disclose their true incomes. The Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning. [Ref: Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde : 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 ]

9.It is trite law that a husband cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan : (2015) 5 SCC 705 , observed as under:

“ 14. …. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrP