Mohammad Amajad vs Sarah Amajad @ Sonia Dhir
2015 Latest Caselaw 809 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   DECIDED ON : 29th January, 2015

+      CRL.REV.P. 106/2014 & Crl.M.A.Nos.2841/2014 and 8307/2014

       MOHAMMAD AMAJAD
                                                                ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr.Sharad Pandey, Advocate.
                          versus
       SARAH AMAJAD @ SONIA DHIR
                                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

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

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.2842/2014 (delay)

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for condonation of delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the 80 days delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 106/2014 & Crl.M.A.Nos.2841/2014 and 8307/2014

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the

petitioner-Mohammad Amajad to impugn the order dated 02.03.2013

passed by the Judge-02, Family Courts, Saket under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

by which interim maintenance @ `7,000/- per month from the date of

filing of the application was granted to the respondent-wife. The petition

is contested by the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is

unable to pay the huge amount of `7,000/- per month as he has an annual

income of `2 lacs being a butcher by profession. He is to maintain eight

other family members dependent upon him. These assertions are

controverted by the respondent's counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the

statement of the present petitioner recorded on 22.12.2014 in the

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the cross-examination, the

petitioner admitted that he was working on commission basis for supply

of meat to export houses and his annual income from the said business

was 3-4 lacs after deducting expenses. It is also not in dispute that the

petitioner has since remarried and has children to maintain them. In the

reply to the application for interim maintenance, he alleged that during the

period 2006 to October, 2008, the respondent had taken away several lacs

of rupees from him on one pretext or the other to hand over to her family

members. Apparently, the income disclosed by the petitioner initially is

incorrect.

4. Considering the income of the petitioner as admitted by him

in the cross-examination on 22.12.2004, the interim maintenance @

`7,000/- per month cannot be termed as excessive or unreasonable. I find

no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed. All pending

applications also stand disposed of.

5. Trial court record (if any) be sent back along with a copy of

this order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

29th January, 2015 sa