Delhi High Court
Sh. Arun Vats vs Ms. Pallavi Sharma & Anr. on 6 December, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
Reserved on : 02.12.2019
Decision on : 06.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
SH. ARUN VATS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Vats, Advocate.
versus
MS. PALLAVI SHARMA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate along
with R-1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Family Court in MT No. 696/2016 whereby
in the respondent's petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an interim
maintenance of Rs.33,005/- per month was granted to the respondent/wife
and the minor child.
2. In the aforesaid petition, it is the case of respondent/wife that she was
thrown out of her matrimonial house and was with her mother at her parental
home along with her minor child. It was also stated that she had no source
of income and claimed Rs.80,000/- per month as maintenance.
3. It was further stated by the respondent/wife that she had done her
LLB and was enrolled as an advocate in the year 2000. She practised briefly
prior to her marriage and at the time of filing of her petition, she was
pursuing her LLM. She was unable to pursue her profession on account of
the young age of her child who was 3 and half years old back then.
4. The petitioner/husband filed his income affidavit before the Family
Court wherein it was stated that he was working as an Executive Chef in
Convention Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Goa and earning about Rs.88,000/- per month.
It was stated that the petitioner/husband has old aged parents to care for and
other liabilities towards loan and rent of his accommodation. He was paying
maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month for the minor child.
5. The Family Court noted that the annual income of the
petitioner/husband was Rs.11,31,040/- per annum for the year 2016-17 and
his gross income for the year 2017-18 was Rs.8,81,940/- per annum. After
deducting the tax paid amounting to Rs. 95,838/-, the Family Court took the
net income at Rs.7,86,102/-. The Family Court allotted two units to every
member, one unit for the minor child and one extra unit to the
petitioner/husband for maintaining his separate household. Thus, after
rounding off, the respondent/wife was awarded interim maintenance @
Rs.33,005/- per month for herself and the minor child.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has referred to the bio data
of the respondent/wife which is stated to have been downloaded from a
social website. He has submitted that the respondent/wife is professionally
qualified and is earning well. He also submitted that the petitioner was
paying rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month vide order dated 16.07.16.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner/husband was asked if any document has been filed to support his
contention that the respondent/wife was practising and earning. However,
he was unable to show any document in support. A perusal of the record
would show that besides placing on record the aforesaid bio data of the
respondent/wife, which is disputed, the petition/husband has not placed any
document on record to show that the respondent/wife is actually earning.
8. In Shalija & Anr. Vs. Khobbana reported as (2018) 12 SCC 199, it
was held that 'capable of earning' and 'actual earning' are two different
requirements. Merely because wife is capable of earning was held not to be
a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
9. The petitioner's aforementioned contention, in absence of any
supporting document, remains a disputed question and needs to be tested in
trial. The Family Court has recorded in the impugned order that any amount
paid as maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife and her minor child
for the period in question would be liable to be adjusted.
10. In view of the above discussions, I find no illegality or perversity in
the impugned order passed by the Family Court. The revision petition is
dismissed accordingly. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as
infructuous.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
DECEMBER 06, 2019
ga
