NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/000719

CRL.M.C. 2331/2020

Page 1 of 9

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:10.01.2023

Pronounced on: 02.02.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 2331/2020 & CRL.M.A. 5396/2022

SMT. SAVITA DEVI …. Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Ms. Ashu

Chaudhary, Mr. Pritpal Singh,

Mr. Divyam Aggarwal and Ms.

Shaurya Sharma, Advocates.

Versus

SH. LALIT KUMAR …. Respondent

Through:

Mr. Farasat Ali Siddiqui and

Mr. Ravi S. Gupta, Advocates

with respondent.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the order dated 11.03.2020 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, South East District, Saket

Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “learned ASJ”) whereby the learned

Session Judge has reduced the maintenance amount from Rs.15,000/-

to Rs.10,000/- (Rs. 7,000/- for Petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- for the son of

the parties).

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:06.02.2023

19:27:23

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/000719

CRL.M.C. 2331/2020

Page 2 of 9

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the

parties was solemnized on 19.02.2006 and from the wedlock, a child

namely Harshit was born on 05.07.2008. It is alleged by the petitioner

that respondent and his family used to ill-treat the petitioner as she had

failed to fulfill their demand of dowry. In the year 2013, respondent’s

family allegedly threw the petitioner as well as respondent out of the

matrimonial home and thereafter in 2015, respondent deserted the

petitioner and returned to his parents. It is further alleged that

respondent had also filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of

the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter “HMA”) before the Family

Court, Saket and petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 12 of

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(hereinafter “DV Act”). The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila

Court, Saket Courts (hereinafter “learned MM”) vide order dated

04.02.2019 directed the respondent to pay an interim maintenance of

Rs. 15,000/- i.e., Rs. 10,000/- to petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- to their son.

The relevant portion of the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned

MM reads as under:

“…I have perused the income affidavits of both the

parties and documents filed in support. Marriage between

the parties and paternity of minor son is not disputed.

Respondent has further not disputed that the complainant

is merely 12th class, while has concealed his own specific

educational qualification by vaguely stating himself to be

a graduate from DU and post graduate from Himachal

University

without

providing

details

of

such

qualifications. He has not disputed complainant to be

unemployed and has claimed himself to be earning Rs.

8,000/- per month as daily service executive at Uma

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:06.02.2023

19:27:23

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/000719

CRL.M.C. 2331/2020

Page 3 of 9

Maheshwari Traders. He has filed an undated certificate

purportedly issued by an employer to declare that he is

working as such since 21.07.2015, at a salary of Rs.

8,000/- per month which is even below the minimum

wages prescribed under Minimum Wages Act for an

uneducated unskilled labour. Even the statement of

accounts filed by respondent does not show credit of any

such income to his account. It is therefore difficult to

believe that a hale hearty man who is admittedly a post

graduate is working at a meager salary of Rs. 8,000/- per

month. It is pertinent to note that the bank account

statement filed by him reveals a average withdrawal of

Rs. 10,000/-