Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a social welfare provision intended to prevent vagrancy; however, a claimant for maintenance must provide transparent financial disclosure to prove an 'inability to maintain', otherwise, a court may draw an adverse inference.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall be disposing of two connected criminal revision petitions preferred by the parties who are legally wedded to each other. They both seek setting aside of the judgment dated 04.05.2022 [hereafter ‘impugned judgment’] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi [hereafter ‘Family Court’] in M.T. No. 550/2018 titled ‘Geeta & Anr. vs. Nishant Tyagi @ Johney’.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 27.11.2009, the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, wherefrom a child was born to them on 28.08.2010. Allegedly, ever since the inception of the marriage, the wife had been subjected to harassment – physical, mental, and financial – at the hands of the husband and her in-laws. In light of the same, she allegedly had to move out of the matrimonial house and depend on her mother for sustenance. She thereafter instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’] claiming maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- for herself and Rs. 10,000/- for her minor child) from her husband, asserting that he was working as a Senior Electrician and earning about Rs. 55,000/- per month.

3. The said petition came to be partly allowed by the learned Family Court in respect of the minor child, and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 16,000/- per month for the minor child until her marriage or until she is in a position to maintain herself. However, the wife was denied maintenance. The observations of the learned Family Court in the impugned judgment are as under:

6. In evidence petitioner has filed affidavit on the lines of petition and she has proved copy of FIR No. 480/2016 as Mark-A, rent agreement as Ex. PW- 1/1, school fee receipt as Ex. PW-1/2(Colly), bank passbook as Ex. PW-1/3 and Adhaar card as Ex. PW-1/4. This witness was duly cross examined by. Ld. Counsel for the respondent. On the other hand, respondent examined himself as RW-1 and proved the copy of Adhaar Card as Ex. RW-1/1 and copy of salary slip as Ex. RW-1/2 RW-1 is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

7. In the cross examination PW-1 admitted that she is working in Education Department at Khekhra Bhagpat at present on temporary basis. She has stated that she has annexed her salary certificate with the case file. PW-1 has also stated that at present her monthly salary is Rs. 10,000/- She has stated that she is residing on rent and earlier she was paying rent of Rs. 4500/- per month and now she is paying rent @ Rs.5000/- per month. She further stated that school fees of her child is Rs. 1400/- per month. During cross Examination PW-1 has admitted her salary slip which is proved on record as Ex. PW 1/RX-1. Petitioner no. 1 has not placed on record her recent salary slip to show that she is only earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

8. It is the case of the petitioner no. 1 that she was working as a teacher and due to the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the service of petitioner no. I was terminated on 25.07.2017 and after that she is working as temporary teacher in U.P. School. Petitioner during cross examination admitted the documents Ex. PW-1/RX-1 which is salary slip of December, 2016. On this salary slip it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 33,052/- was being received as salary by the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 has placed on record judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Cour