Delhi High Court
Amjad Ali vs Salma Begum And Anr. on 23 July, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JULY 23, 2015
+ Crl.Rev.P.630/2014 & Crl.M.A.15843/2014
AMJAD ALI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Ankit Sharma, Advocate.
versus
SALMA BEGUM AND ANR. .... Respondents
Through : Mr.Abhishek Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
to impugn the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 21.08.2014 of
learned Principal Judge, Family Courts in MT No.345/14 under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby he was directed to pay
`8,000/- per month as maintenance to each of the respondents. The
petition is contested by the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the record. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the
respondents claimed maintenance to the tune of `75,000/- p.m. It was
alleged that the total income of the petitioner from all sources was
`1,50,000/- per month. In response to that, the petitioner claimed that he
was getting `19,000/- p.m. as salary due to his employment with Kalka
Public School Alaknanda, New Delhi. He claimed that Respondent No.1
was earning `3,000/- per month by doing the work of embroidery or
tailoring.
Relationship of husband and wife between the parties is not
in dispute. Admittedly, respondent No.2 was born out of this wedlock and
presently he is residing with his mother. The respondent-wife in her
evidence has levelled serious allegations whereby she was treated with
cruelty on account of dowry demands. A case FIR No.224/08 under
Section 406/498-A/34 IPC lodged by her which is still pending. It has
come on record that the petitioner has since divorced his wife and has
contracted second marriage with Rubia Khan. Apparently, the petitioner
is entitled to live separately as the petitioner has contracted second
marriage.
3. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to show if
respondent-wife was gainfully employed to generate monthly income of
`3,000/- per month due to embroidery or tailoring. No such suggestion
was put to her in the cross-examination when she appeared as PW-1.
Nothing has come on record to show if she is expert in embroidery or
tailoring. Regarding the income of the petitioner, he did not produce
cogent and reliable documents to assess it positively. He did not file on
record income tax returns and merely relied upon Form 16 which showed
his annual income from salary alone. The petitioner has admitted that he
was running a Computer Centre at Krishna Park, Main Devli Road,
Khanpur. But has come with the plea that the said centre has since been
sold by him for `80,000/- to pay `1,50,000/- to the respondent No.1
pursuant to conditional bail order. The Trial Court has dealt with this
aspect elaborately and has noted that the petitioner has taken conflicting
stands about the computer centre. It is unbelievable that the petitioner
earning handsome income from Computer Centre would sell it for
`80,000/- to deprive himself regular source of income. He did not
produce any document to show as to how much income was being earned
from running of the said Computer Centre. No books of accounts
maintained at the centre showing the number of students admitted therein
has been placed on record. Apparently, the petitioner appears to have
concealed his real income.
While disposing interim maintenance application way back in
2010, he was directed to pay maintenance to the tune of `12,000/- to the
respondents by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which was upheld in
revision too.
4. The findings of the Court below are based on fair
appreciation of the evidence and need no intervention. I find no illegality
or irregularity in the impugned order granting maintenance to the tune of
`8,000/- each to the respondents. Looking into the status of the parties,
their living standard, educational expenses of the child, cost of living and
other circumstances, amount of `16,000/- for both the respondents cannot
be termed unreasonable or excessive.
5. The Revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Trial Court record (if any) along with a copy of this order be sent back
forthwith.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JULY 23, 2015
sa
