$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 08.02.2021

Pronounced on: 22.02.2021

(1)

+

CRL.REV.P. 298/2020

SAMINA & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate

Versus

SYED ASIM PASHA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advocate

(2)

+

CRL.REV.P. 17/2021 & Crl.M.A. 767-68/2021

SYED ASHIM PASHA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advocate

Versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Amit Chadha, Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State

Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate

for respondents No.2 to 4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T

1.

The order impugned in both the petitions is dated 20.02.2020 passed

by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,

vide which petitioner/husband- Syed Hashim Pasha [in Crl. Rev. P.

17/2021] has been directed to pay maintenance to petitioners/wife & two

daughters- Samina & Ors. [in Crl.Rev. P. 298/2020].

2.

Since these revisions petitions have been directed against a common

impugned order, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that marriage between Syed Hashim

Pasha/ husband and Samina/wife was solemnized 23.04.2015 at Delhi as

per Muslim law. Husband is said to be a permanent resident of Hyderabad

and an Engineer by profession. Wife is also said to be a highly educated

woman but unemployed. Out of this wedlock, parties are blessed with two

daughters. However, the marriage between the parties did not work and they

are started living separately since 28.05.2017. The husband is staying at

Hyderabad and wife is staying at her parents’ house in Delhi. The husband

has alleged that despite repeated requests, wife has refused to return to the

matrimonial house, whereas the wife has alleged that her husband on

28.05.2017, under a conspiracy brought her and the two daughters to Delhi

to meet her parents and left them there and thereafter, put a condition that

she should come back only if she brings Rs.5 Lacs from her parents.

4.

It is not disputed that multiple litigations between the parties are

pending.

5.

The marital discord between the parties have been elaborated in detail

in the impugned order and is not required be mentioned here. What this

Court is required to determine is as to whether there is any illegality or

perversity in the impugned order awarding maintenance to the wife and if it

is exorbitant or on the lower side, as claimed by the parties.

6.

It is not in dispute that since 28.05.2017, the parties have been living

separately and their two daughters are living with the wife. The wife has

claimed that the husband is an Engineer and earning Rs.2 Lacs p.m. and he

has no other liability except to maintain her and two daughters. She has

claimed monthly expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/-

each for two daughters.

7.

On the other hand, husband has claimed that the wife is a well

educated lady and an international player in shooting and is an international

Coach and she imparts training at Tuglakabad Range, Delhi and is earning

Rs.25,000/- p.m. The husband has admitted that he is M.Sc in Informatics,

but has claimed that he is unemployed and has taken a loan of Rs.10 Lacs

and is paying Rs.21,988/- p.m. towards its payment. In addition, he has

claimed monthly expenditure of Rs.28,000/- towards household, transport,

medical and health club.

8.

In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife, the trial

court vide impugned order dated 28.02.2019 had awarded interim

maintenance of Rs.12,000/- p.m. to wife and Rs.4,000/- each for both

daughters and vide judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Principal

Judge, Family Court, the said order was affirmed.