A party who suppresses material information regarding their financial capacity and income in an affidavit is disentitled to claim interim monetary maintenance, though they may still be entitled to residential support under the protection of domestic violence laws.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-wife against the order dated 05.04.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SFTC (West)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟] in Criminal Appeal Nos. 96/2022 and 190/2022, wherein both the parties had assailed the order dated 08.04.2022, passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court-05), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in MC No. 300/2020 titled „Sahiba Sodhi vs. Bikram Jeet Singh‟, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012 [hereafter „PWDV Act‟].

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the parties herein were married on 19.02.2012 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. A male child was born from the wedlock on 21.01.2013, who is presently in the custody of the petitioner-wife. In September 2020, the petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, alleging that she had been subjected to continuous harassment on account of dowry demands and verbal as well as emotional abuse by the respondent no. 2-husband. It was stated that since 22.07.2020, she had been residing separately along with her minor son in a rented accommodation.

3. The learned Trial Court, after directing both parties to file their affidavits of income and assets, and upon hearing them, was pleased to grant ad-interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife for herself and the minor son, vide order dated 09.11.2020, based on the admitted net income of the respondent no.2-husband of ₹67,000/- per month.

4. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 08.04.2022, disposed of three applications: (i) the petitioner-wife‟s application seeking interim maintenance, (ii) the respondent no. 2-husband‟s application seeking reduction of the ad-interim maintenance, and (iii) the petitioner-wife‟s application seeking restoration of the earlier ad-interim maintenance order (which had been stayed on 10.03.2022 on the ground that the wife was delaying the proceedings). Vide order dated 08.04.2022, the learned Trial Court was pleased to grant interim maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month each to the petitioner-wife and the minor son, from the date of filing of the petition till its final disposal.

5. Aggrieved thereby, both the parties preferred appeals under Section 29 of the PWDV Act before the learned Sessions Court. The petitioner-wife contended that the quantum of interim maintenance was inadequate and based on an erroneously assessed income of the respondent-husband. The respondent no. 2-husband, on the other hand, contended that the wife was disentitled to any maintenance as she had concealed her true income.

6. The learned Sessions Court, vide common order dated 05.04.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-wife and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2-husband. While upholding the direction to pay interim maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month to the minor son, the learned Sessions Court set aside the direction granting interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, the petitioner-wife has preferred the present revision petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Court erred in concluding that the petitioner, being a dual MBA, was capable of earning and had been earning a substantial income. It is argued that the petit