JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL)

1. By way of the present revision petition, the revisionist seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in M.T. Case No. 522/2023 titled Ms. Priyanka vs. Mr. Sagar Phogat, whereby the learned Family Court directed the revisionist to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and her minor child.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the revisionist, namely Sagar Phogat, had married the respondent, Priyanka, on 26.05.2017 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at

Ramher Vatika, Prahladpur Banger, Delhi. The marriage had been duly consummated, and a male child had been born out of the said wedlock on 23.08.2019. Thereafter, the respondent had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., bearing M.T. Case No. 522/2023, on 06.10.2023, along with an application seeking interim maintenance. It had been alleged by the respondent that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the revisionist and his family members. She had further asserted that the revisionist was earning a rental income of more than ₹4,00,000/- per month and that an amount of ₹2,00,000/- per month was required for the maintenance of herself and the minor child. By the impugned order dated 20.05.2024, the learned Trial Court had directed the revisionist to pay a sum of ₹50,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and her minor child, from the date of filing of the petition, until further orders or during the pendency of the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 has been passed without proper appreciation of the facts and is based solely on the respondent’s pleadings and income affidavit, without affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present his case or respond adequately. It is contended that the amount of ₹50,000/- awarded as interim maintenance is highly unrealistic and beyond the petitioner’s financial capacity, especially considering that he is currently unemployed and dependent on his ailing mother, who is suffering from stage-three brain tumor, for

sustenance. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court erred in assuming a notional income of ₹1,00,000/- per month based on ancestral properties, despite the fact that such properties are shared among several family members, generate limited rental income, and the rent is received in the name of the petitioner's mother. The learned counsel also highlights that the respondent, being highly qualified and self-sufficient, is capable of maintaining herself and has suppressed relevant financial details in her income affidavit, including an undisclosed bank account. Moreover, on the date of the impugned order, the petitioner was represented by a proxy counsel due to the ill health of his main counsel, and a request for adjournment was unjustly denied, resulting in serious prejudice. It is thus argued that the impugned order is vitiated for having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and on an erroneous assessment of the petitioner’s income and liabilities.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, argues that the learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned and justified order after considering the material placed on record, including the income affidavits of both parties. It is submitted that the amount of ₹50,000/- per month awarded as interim maintenance is neither excessive nor arbitrary, keeping in view the needs of the respondent and the minor child, and the standard of living they were accustomed to. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had ample opportunity to file his reply and supporting documents but failed to do so within the time granted, and merely