JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner-wife seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 15.12.2023 [hereafter „impugned judgment‟], passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟] in New Mt. No. 56116/2016.

2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.07.2007 at Delhi. It is alleged that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, which ultimately compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. She claims to have no independent source of income and alleges that the respondent made no provision for her maintenance. Consequently, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], seeking monthly maintenance of ₹25,000/-. It is her case that the respondent earns more than ₹50,000/- per month and leads a luxurious lifestyle.

3. The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereafter „HMA‟] on 08.04.2009seeking annulment of the marriage, which was registered as HMA No. 222/2009 before the District & Sessions Court, Rohini. Alongside, she moved an application under Section 24 of HMA seeking interim maintenance of ₹50,000/- per month and ₹55,000/- towards litigation expenses. The respondent filed a preliminary objection alleging that the marriage could not be consummated due to the petitioner‟s conduct. The learned Family Court dismissed her application for interim maintenance on 05.10.2009. However, the petitioner challenged the said dismissal before this Court, which allowed her petition on 31.03.2011 and directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of ₹12,500/- per month from the date of the application. In the annulment petition, the respondent failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte on 11.05.2011, following which the learned Family Court, vide judgment dated 06.01.2012, declared the marriage null and void. The said judgment has attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondent.

4. During the pendency of the maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner moved an application seeking amendment of her main petition. On 11.05.2011, the respondent and his counsel remained absent, and he was proceeded ex parte. However, the ex parte order was subsequently set aside on 16.08.2012. The amendment application was allowed on 11.01.2013, and the petitioner filed an amended petition claiming ₹40,000/- per month as maintenance. Ultimately, the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2023 came to be passed, whereby the learned Family Court directed the respondent to pay ₹12,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till 31.12.2012, and ₹24,000/- per month from 01.01.2013 till 22.02.2016 (i.e., till the date of petitioner‟s remarriage).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court failed to appropriately consider the respondent‟s financial capacity while determining the quantum of maintenance. It is contended that the respondent had represented on the matrimonial website Jeevansathi.com that his annual income exceeded ₹10 lakhs, which ought to have been given due weightage. It is further submitted that while the respondent claimed to be earning only ₹9,500/- per month, he admitted during proceedings that he had completed his B.Tech from BITS Pilani in 1993 and had filed Income Tax Returns (ITRs) from 2005 to 2017, indicating higher income. The learned counsel contends that although the learned Family Court observed that the respondent had concealed his actual income, it nevertheless assumed a notional income of only ₹30,000/- per month, which, according to the petitioner, is grossly understated. It is argued that if the respondent was earning ₹10 lakhs annually around 2006-07 (i.e., ₹83,333/- per month), then by 2012, his income should reasonably ha