Savita Dass vs Samson Dass
2016 Latest Caselaw 1348 Del

$-20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               DECIDED ON : 19th FEBRUARY, 2016

+                        CRL.REV.P. 592/2014

      SAVITA DASS                                        ..... Petitioner

                         Through :    Mr.R.Venkataraman, Advocate.


                         versus

      SAMSON DASS                                        ..... Respondent

                         Through :    None.

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

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to

challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 01.07.2014 of

learned Principal Judge, Family Courts Saket in the proceedings under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which interim maintenance was declined to her.

Respondent after appearing initially, opted to remain absent on the

adjourned dates.

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

examined the file. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have been

initiated by the petitioner wife against the respondent husband. The

respondent after filing written statement in the said proceedings did not

appear and was proceeded ex-parte. The case is now fixed before the Trial

Court for final disposal.

3. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. The petitioner

is living separate from the respondent since 2013. The respondent has

admitted to be earning about `50,000/- per month due to employment with

a T.V. channel. He has a son namely Steve from his previous wife

dependent upon him for maintenance. In the petition, the petitioner

claimed that she was forced to take up small jobs and at present was

working as an Assistant to a Principal of a School in Mayur Vihar, Phase-

I, New Delhi and was unable to make both ends meet. In the written

statement, the respondent averred that the petitioner was earning

handsome amount from her job and was also running an NGO in the name

of M/s. Samarpan. She is having an income of `70,000/- per month from

all sources. In the Income affidavit, the petitioner disclosed her income to

be `5,000/- - `7,000/- per month. Nothing has emerged on record if the

petitioner is having any specific and definite income from the NGO

M/s.Samarpan as claimed by the respondent. He did not produce on

record any cogent document to infer the petitioner's income to be more

than `7,000 per month. In the impugned order, the Trial Court was of the

view that petitioner's income in between `5,000/- - `7,000/- was enough

to maintain herself.

4. The respondent has not opted to appear before this Court as

well as before the Court below to contest the petitioner's claim regarding

her exact income. Apparently, the income being generated by the

petitioner at present cannot be considered sufficient to maintain herself.

Since the respondent is earning a handsome salary of `55,000/- per

month, at this stage, without prejudice and subject to future adjustment, he

can reasonably be asked to contribute `7,000/- per month as interim

maintenance to the petitioner.

5. In the light of above discussion, the revision petition is

disposed of and the respondent is directed to pay `7,000/- per month as

interim maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of the

application till the date of the passing of this order. It is, however,

clarified that the amount so paid shall be without prejudice and subject to

adjustment (if any) during trial. In case, the respondent succeeds on merits

in the petition, the amount so paid shall be liable to be returned by the

petitioner to him.

6. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits

of the case.

7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the

order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 19, 2016 / tr