Delhi High Court
Kalika Bux Singh vs Kumari Nidhi Singh on 27 September, 2022
[1]
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 796 OF 2019 &
CRL.M.A. 32406/2019
Between:-
SH. KALIKA BUX SINGH
S/O LATE SH, DADAN SINGH
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE (GAO) DHANA PUR,
THANA SANGRAMPUR,
DISTRICT AND TEHSIL AMETHI,
UTTAR PRADESH.
PRESENTY AT:
C/O SH. HARISH BHARDWAJ
R/O 359/1, CHIRAGH DELHI,
NEW DELHI.
........PETITIONER
(Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Ms. Pallavi Sharma and Ms.
Ashu Chaudhary, Advocates.)
AND
KUMARI NIDHI SINGH
D/O SH. KALIKA BUX SINGH
THROUGH HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
MS. MEENAKSHI SHARMA
W/O SH. KALIKA BUX SINGH
R/O J-677, KALI BARI,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:01.10.2022
16:41:24
[2]
MANDIR MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
.......RESPONDENT
(Through: Mr. Pramod K. Singh, Advocate.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Pronounced on : 27.09.2022
JUDGMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
1. This revision is directed against impugned judgment dated
22.03.2019 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Patiala House
Courts, Delhi, in case No. MT 124/2018, whereby, an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.')
filed by respondent-daughter has been allowed and also against interim
order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the said court granting interim
maintenance during the pendency of the main petition.
2. The facts of the case in short are that the respondent is the
daughter of petitioner and of Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, who is the wife of
the petitioner. On 01.05.2002, the marriage of the petitioner was
solemnized with the mother of the respondent as per Hindu rites and
rituals. On 06.08.2003, out of their wedlock, the respondent was born. It
is stated that since June, 2004 the wife of the petitioner left the
matrimonial home and the petitioner thereafter since June, 2013 started
living at his native village in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 2013,
the petitioner was served with the notice of the petition under Section
125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and thereafter he filed the
reply and vide first impugned order dated 05.08.2016, the learned Family
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:01.10.2022
16:41:24
[3]
Court granted interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month.
However, vide final impugned order dated 22.03.2019 which is the
second impugned order, the learned Family Court granted a maintenance
of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent w.e.f. the date of filing of the
petition i.e. 05.09.2013 with the condition that the maintenance amount
shall be enhanced by 5% every year.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is illegal and improper and the same has been passed in
utter violation of the settled legal position. According to her, the
petitioner had to shift to his village in Dhanapur, Amethi, Uttar Pradesh
and he is somehow managing his family. According to her the school
fees of the respondent has been wrongly shown to be Rs.2,400/-,
quarterly, whereas, she was getting a rebate of Rs.1,800/- per month. It
has also been stated that the mother of the respondent is getting a sum of
Rs.48,000/- per month as salary from Ghaziabad Development Authority
whereas, the total income of the petitioner is about Rs.7,800/- per month
as he is working as a tutor. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the monthly income of the petitioner has been assessed as per
minimum wages of Delhi Government @ Rs.16,482/- and accordingly
maintenance for sum of Rs.6,000/- has been awarded to respondent
whereas, the minimum wages applicable to the petitioner is of Uttar
Pradesh, which is Rs.8,000/- per month for unskilled worker. The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance
on a decision of this Court in the case of Sarita Bakshi v. State & Anr.1
Crl. Rev. P.792/2018 decided on 03.06.2022.
(2022) SCC OnLine Del 1707
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:01.10.2022
16:41:24
[4]
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits
that submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
meritless and the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is
stated that the petitioner is residing in Delhi for the last twenty years and
is working as a property dealer and also running a coaching institute.
According to him, the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- per
month from coaching, home tutoring & property dealing business. It has
also been submitted that the petitioner is maintaining four bank accounts
in four different banks. It is, therefore, submitted that the monthly
income of the petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be less than
even if, assessed by the court below Rs.16,482/-. It is stated that even
the said income has been assessed to be on a lower side and under the
circumstances no interference is called for.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
6. The provision under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to safeguard the
wife, minor child, father or mother from financial suffering due to lack of
money. The aim is to ensure that there should be no financial hardship
and the wife, minor child, father or mother should be able to enjoy the
same status and comfort as enjoyed by husband.
7. It has been held in various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the provisions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. fall within the
Constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) and Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. The object is to ensure social justice towards women and
children.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:01.10.2022
16:41:24
[5]
8. In the instant case if the material available on record is perused the
same would indicate that the petitioner has not disputed the marriage
with respondent-wife. The birth of respondent is also not disputed from
out of their wedlock. It is also an admitted position that the respondent is
living with mother since her birth. The facts further show that the
petitioner himself has admitted in evidence that he is a tutor by
profession. He, however, denied his monthly income of Rs.1,20,000/-
per month or of running a coaching center. The court below however, in
absence of any specific evidence had to do the guess work and has
accordingly opined that in any case petitioner would not be earning less
than the minimum wages applicable to Delhi Government. It is a settled
legal position that an able bodied young man has to be presumed to be
capable of earning sufficient money so as to reasonably maintain his wife
and children. He cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to
earn enough to be able to maintain them.
9. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food,
clothing, residence, medical expenses, education, etc. Educational
expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the
wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared
proportionality between the parties. In the instant case, even assuming
that the mother of the respondent is also earning but taking into
consideration, cost of living, education etc. in daily life, the monthly
expenses of respondent No.2 cannot be less than Rs.15,000/- per month.
If the court below has directed for a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as
maintenance to the respondent-wife the same cannot be termed to be
exorbitant or unreasonable. The petitioner is also not truthful in
disclosing his actual monthly income.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:01.10.2022
16:41:24
[6]
10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is not inclined to
interfere into the order passed by the Family court. Accordingly, the
instant revision along with pending application is dismissed.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
p'ma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:01.10.2022
16:41:24
