Krishan Kumar vs Pooja Yadav @ Priya
2014 Latest Caselaw 4413 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                          RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 05, 2014
                          DECIDED ON : SEPTEMBER 12, 2014


+      CRL.M.C.1727/2013 & CRL.M.A.2242/2014 & 5379/2013



       KRISHAN KUMAR
                                                           ..... Petitioner.
                          Through :   Mr.Kaushal Yadav with Ms.Mamta
                                      Rani, Advocates along with
                                      Petitioner present in person.

                          VERSUS


       POOJA YADAV @ PRIYA

                                                          ..... Respondent
                          Through :   Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia,
                                      Advocate, with Respondent present
                                      in person along with her father.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The petitioner-Krishan Kumar is aggrieved by an order dated

05.06.2012 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) in

Complaint Case No.96/10/12 by which he was directed to pay `2,500/- as

interim maintenance to the respondent wife from the date of filing of the

petition in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. The relationship of husband and wife is not in dispute.

The respondent-wife claimed that she had no independent source of

income to maintain herself. In response, thereto, the petitioner alleged

that she was employed in a private concern and had a monthly income of

`5,000/-. He, however, did not disclose as to where the respondent was

employed and what was her designation. No documents like salary

certificate, appointment letter etc. were produced to ascertain if the

respondent was gainfully employed in any private concern. Apparently,

the respondent is unable to maintain herself having no independent

income.

3. Regarding income of the petitioner, the Trial Court did not

believe the respondent that he had income of `25,000/- p.m. on plying of

an auto rickshaw, `10,000/- p.m. from agricultural land and `15,000/-

p.m. as rent. The respondent did not substantiate her assertions by any

cogent document. The petitioner claimed that being a student in Satyawati

college, he had no source of income and was dependent upon his 'uncle'

for his livelihood.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at the time of his

marriage but that does not invalidate the marriage. Since the respondent-

wife is living physically separate, it is the responsibility/obligation of the

petitioner-husband arising out of the status of the marriage to maintain

her. The obligation to support the wife is a personal obligation. The

object of the provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to compel a man to

perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his

wife and children so that they are not left beggared and destitute and

thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their

subsistence.

5. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of

Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in September, 2010.

In the said petition (copy of which has been placed on record) he had

claimed himself to be of 18 years before marriage and of 19 years at the

time of filing the petition. The said petition was supported by an affidavit

sworn by him. The said petition was subsequently withdrawn by him after

the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage

Act for maintenance. In the petition, the petitioner did not claim if he had

no sufficient 'means' to maintain his wife. Contrary to that, he alleged that

he was forced to buy his own house. He did not reveal as to from where

he had arranged money to purchase the house. The petitioner has not

disclosed as to how he is maintaining himself besides pursuing his studies

at Satyawati College. It appears that the petitioner has not disclosed his

true source of income. He cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his

wife while purporting to bring her in the matrimonial home by

maintaining petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. If he has

means to maintain her in the matrimonial home, the law further extends

the responsibility to maintain her when she lives separately. The

petitioner has capability and ability to generate income.

6. Date of birth of the petitioner is 12.07.1994 and he has

attained majority on 12.07.2012. Since the petitioner was a student, it

would be unjust to ask him to pay maintenance before he attained

majority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the inability

of the respondent to maintain herself; the income of the petitioner and the

fact that he was pursuing studies in a college, the petitioner is directed to

pay interim maintenance to the respondent @ `2,000/- p.m from the date

of his attaining majority i.e.12.07.2012 till the disposal of the maintenance

petition.

7. The petition and all pending applications stand disposed of in

the above terms.

8. The observations made in the order shall have no impact on

the merits of the case.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 sa