IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203

1. CRR(F)-707-2024(O&M)

Reserved on: 15.05.2025 Pronounced on: 29.05.2025 Sachin Arora ...Appellant(s)

Versus Kavita Arora and others ...Respondent(s)

2. CRR(F)-1085-2024 (O&M)

Kavita Arora and others ...Appellant(s)

Versus Sachin Arora ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:-. Mr. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR(F)-107-2024 and for respondent(s) in CRR-1085-2024.

Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the respondents in CRR(F)-707-2024 and for the petitioner(s)

in CRR(F)-1085-2024.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J.

This common judgment shall decide the aforementioned revision petition, as they stem from the same impugned order dated 20.12.2023. For the sake of brevity the facts are being extracted from CRR(F)-707-2024.

2. The present petition has been preferred against order dated 20.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby final maintenance of Rs.50,000/-

per month was awarded in favour of the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnised on 28.11.2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple, whereafter the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondents. The learned Family Court vide order dated 20.12.2023 granted maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month in favour of the respondents (Rs.20,000 to respondent No.1 and Rs.15,000/- each to respondents No.2 and 3). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-wife had left the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause and thereafter filed an application for seeking maintenance from the petitioner, despite being extremely well qualified herself. In fact, prior to their marriage and even some time after, respondent No.1 was admittedly working with GE IBM, SBI on a salary of Rs.12,421/- per month. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is now practising as an Advocate in District Court Gurugram and is also looking after the work of her father who is also a seasoned Advocate, and is therefore earning handsomely. On the other hand, at the time of filing the maintenance application the petitioner was earning a salary of Rs.61,000/- per month, which too kept varying depending upon the deductions made by his employer. Further it is submitted that the income of the petitioner from his new job was wrongly evaluated to be Rs.1,26,734/- p.m. at the time of passing of the impugned order without taking into consideration the statutory deductions like income tax and other deductions like payment towards provident fund and EMI etc.

Further, the fact that the petitioner had purchased a flat in the joint ownership of himself and respondent No.1 and has been single handedly paying monthly instalments to the tune of Rs.26,056/- per month, which he had to get reduced to Rs.17,169/- per month since it was getting hard for the petitioner to continue paying such a hefty sum.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent whilst refuting the aforesaid contentions submits that the petitioner had subjected respondent No.1 to grave domestic abuse, for which a complaint was given in the Women Cell and even an FIR was lodged against him on 07.02.2019. Presently, respondent No.1 is residing with her parents along with her minor children (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) and is not have any independent source of income to maintain themselves. Respondent No.1 is also not in the pink of her health and has been undergoing treatment for some issues with her spinal cord. On the other hand, the petitioner who is a software engineer with a degree in B.Sc (Hons) Physics and a post graduate diploma in computer application, had w