1. The present petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 22.12.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the learned Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT Case 358/18.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹8,300/- per month to each of the respondents (wife and daughter of the petitioner) and the son of the petitioner till 02.03.2021 (that is, the date on which the son attained the age of

majority), and thereafter, maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to each of the respondents. Further, the learned Family Court directed that the maintenance amount will be increased by 10% after every two years from the date of the order. Litigation expenses of ₹11,000/- were also awarded.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the material on record in its true spirit. He submitted that the petitioner had not neglected the respondents as is evident from the admission made by Respondent No.1 on 04.07.2019 during her cross-examination in relation to her being in possession of the house bearing no. B-51/6, Biharipur, Khajuri, Bhajanpura, which was bought by the petitioner.

4. He submitted that the learned Family Court did not appreciate that Respondent No.1 has admitted that she was residing at her paternal house, which shows that the shared household had been let out by her for financial gains. He submitted that Respondent No.1 has concealed her income from rent.

5. He submitted that Respondent No.1 has categorically admitted that she does not wish to reside with the petitioner, and she cannot be said to be entitled to maintenance in such circumstances.

6. He submitted that the income of the petitioner has been assessed on the higher side without appreciating that the petitioner is a pensioner and he is no longer employed with Central Reserve Police

and he is a mere agriculturalist. He submitted that the petitioner has a very small portion of land and his agricultural income is very meagre on account of the yield of his land being low. He submitted that as per the MSP prices for the concerned area in 2019-2020, the total income from the land will only be Rs. 62,634/- [as per Annexure 7 (colly)], which is further reduced on account of operational costs.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions tendered on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was deliberately trying to mislead the Court with old MSP rates.

8. He further submitted that Respondent No.2 and her brother are both pursuing their higher education, and the respondents have no source of income as Respondent No.1 is only a house wife. He submitted that the petitioner has not made regular payment of the maintenance either.

ANALYSIS

9. It is well settled that the object of granting maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai : (2008) 2 SCC 316, has observed as under:

“6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support

themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508: AIR 1978 SC 1807] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to pr