[1]

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.REV.P. 179/2019 & CRL.M.A. 11998/2021

Reserved on: 12.07.2022

Date of Decision: 18.07.2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

SANDEEP WALIA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate

alongwith Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Ms. Ashu

Chaudhary & Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates.

Versus

MONIKA UPPAL

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms.

Sunita

Arora,

Advocate

(DHCLSC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2018 passed

in MT No. 361/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, West, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby an application under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent-wife has been allowed in part.

2. The facts of the case show that the marriage between the parties

was solemnized on 25.10.2015. Soon after the marriage, on account of

some family disputes between them, they started living separately. There

is no issue out of the wedlock. The respondent-wife filed an application

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. She stated that on

account of harassment being caused by her husband at the matrimonial

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002655

[2]

house, she had to undergo intense mental agony. She narrated various

instances in her application and she further stated that her husband i.e.

revisionist is doing a job of a Graphic Designer in NIIT Company at

Gurugram and is earning Rs.40,000/- per month. She also stated that her

husband has rental income from the house bearing No. B-4/152, Tulsi

Lodge, Committee Bazaar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab-146001, and is getting an

additional sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. That apart, she further stated

that her husband has his own residential accommodation. She further

stated that there is no liability on her husband and the mother of her

husband is also getting pension of Rs.25,000/- per month and he is the

only son. According to her, she did not have any sources of income to

run her livelihood. The respondent-wife further stated that she is fully

dependent on her widowed mother. Accordingly, she prayed for a grant

of a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.25,000/-

towards litigation expenses.

3. The aforesaid application was opposed by the revisionist-husband

before the Family Court by filing his reply. The revisionist-husband

stated that the respondent-wife herself is guilty of causing mental cruelty

and torture to the revisionist. He stated that the respondent-wife had left

the matrimonial house without any reason and justification. He also

stated that his wife made a false complaint before CAW cell and

thereafter she herself remained absent during the counseling proceedings

being conducted by CAW cell. He also stated that earlier he was working

in NIIT, as Graphic Designer, however, he left the job and had become

jobless. According to the revisionist, respondent-wife, is well-qualified

and is earning a handsome amount, hence she is not entitled for any

maintenance.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002655

[3]

4. The learned Family Court recorded the evidence of the parties and

after consideration of the entire material available on record, has held

that the respondent-wife is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month

towards maintenance.

5. The revisionist feeling aggrieved by the said order, has filed the

instant revision.

6. Mr. Saurabh Kansal, alongwith Ms. Pallavi Sharma, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submits that the impugned

order is in complete ignorance of the settled principle of law. The same

also ignores important material available on record and therefore, the

same requires to be set-aside by this Court. Learned counsel has pointed

out that as on the date of passing of the impugned order, there was