Voluntary loan repayments and personal debts cannot be treated as necessary deductions to reduce a spouse’s maintenance liability, and maintenance cannot be denied or reduced based on speculative contentions regarding a spouse’s potential capacity to earn.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek setting aside of the judgment dated 14.09.2023 [hereafter 'impugned judgment'] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Family Court'] in CT No. 2015/2016 titled 'Jyoti & Anr. v. Rajeev Ranjan', filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter 'Cr.P.C.'].

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the petitioner no. 1-wife and petitioner no. 2-minor daughter were awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively, i.e., a total sum of Rs.13,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the petition.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Briefly stated, the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 24.06.2014. It is alleged that prior to and after the marriage, the petitioner no. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, including demand of cash and a car, and that her jewellery was retained by the respondent no.2's family. It is further alleged that she was physically and mentally harassed on multiple occasions and was ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home. A female child was born out of the wedlock on 19.04.2015. Despite having a regular source of income, the respondent no. 2 allegedly neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners, compelling them to file the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in September 2016, seeking maintenance. By way of order dated 17.05.2018, the petitioners herein were awarded ad-interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 led evidence, whereas the respondent did not lead any evidence. Upon hearing arguments on behalf of both parties, the learned Family Court observed that although the respondent was earning about Rs.1 lakh per month, his net income, after deductions, was about Rs.50,000/- per month. Taking into account that the respondent had one additional dependent, i.e., his aged mother, the learned Family Court apportioned the said income into five shares, out of which two shares were attributed to the petitioners, two for the respondent and one for the old mother. However, it was further held that the petitioners were not entitled to these two equal shares, in view of the earning capacity of petitioner no. 1 and the fact that petitioner no. 2 is the joint responsibility of both parents. Accordingly, maintenance of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded to petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 respectively. The findings of the learned Family Court are set out below:

“14. Petitioner no. 1 has alleged that she is residing separately and is not earning, whereas she is maintaining her school going daughter. She has further admitted that she is highly educated and M.A. (Sociology) and earlier was earning by tuitions but now she is not earning. It is further deposed that petitioners are being maintained by her father and unmarried sister, who is working. However, is beyond explanation as to why petitioner no.1, who a highly educated and qualified lady, is not working or earning despite a separation of 8 years. She has admitted that she has been residing in a joint family and other family members may take care of petitioner no. 2, which suggests that either petitioner no. 1 is not earning deliberately despite having capacity to earn or has concealed her actual earning from this court to claim maintenance. No doubt, bank statement of petitioner no. 1 has not supported her earning but merely on this ground earning of petitioner no. 1 may not be disputed, as cash earning may not be denied. In fact, this court has to keep in mind the status of petitioner no. 1 while considering quantum of maintenance that she may earn easily but is not earning despite having no impediment.

15. On the other hand, respondent is doing a government job and fact is not disputed by WS, affidavit of income and assets and salary slip of respond