$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 25.02.2025 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 48/2024 & CRL.M.A. 29357/2024 SODAN SINGH RAWAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr Rajbir Singh Sagar, Advocate versus VIPINTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟] on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 27.05.2024 [hereafter „the impugned judgment‟] passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-01, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟] in a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent (MT No. 363/2017), by way of which the petitioner/husband has been directed to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 48/2024 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed from the date of filing of the application until the judgment, and ₹20,000/- per month from the date of the judgment and till the subsistence of marriage between the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the records, are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Kota, Rajasthan. The parties do not have any children from this wedlock. The respondent alleges that after marriage, the petitioner started demanding dowry, despite her family having already given adequate dowry articles, and subjected her to cruelty. It is further alleged that the petitioner deliberately neglected the respondent, stating that he was in an extramarital relationship and had no interest in her, as he wished to marry someone else. On 15.10.2016, the respondent left the matrimonial home and lodged a police complaint against the petitioner and his family members on 17.10.2016. Subsequently, on 01.08.2017, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She stated that she had been residing separately, while the petitioner, who is employed with the Railways and earns more than ₹60,000/- per month, besides additional earnings of ₹50,000/-, had not been providing any financial support to her. The respondent, therefore, sought a monthly maintenance of ₹25,000/- from the petitioner.

3. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court disposed of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 48/2024 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed awarded maintenance to the respondent wife. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is set out below:

“17. Petitioner has further proved that she has not been working or earning, whereas the respondent has alleged she is highly qualified and has been earning Rs. 70,000/- per month by giving tuitions, whereas the respondent has not proved any document to prove this earning of the petitioner. Petitioner has filed her affidavit of income and assets, as per which, she has no source of earning. No doubt the petitioner is highly qualified and has completed M.A. B.Ed, but she has claimed herself to be house wife. Though her bank statement has reflected certain regular entries, yet income of the petitioner is not enough to maintain her. Even certain entries are pertaining to maintenance being paid by the respondent. As such, the petitioner has not been earning sufficiently to maintain her.

18. Contrary to it, the respondent has been working as JE with Indian Railway and his salary slips pertaining to the month of January and February, 2022 along with Form 16 arc on record, as per which, the respondent has gross salary of Rs. 77,603/- and drawing net salary of Rs.25,973/- pm after paying insurance, pension contribution, Income Tax and other loans. Admittedly, the petitioner has been residing sep