High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed by the husband challenging the Order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, wherein interim maintenance of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded to the wife and minor child (Rs. 62,500/- each) from the date of filing of the petition.
Brief Facts:
The marriage between Jaspreet Singh (husband) and Swaneet Kukreja (wife) was solemnized on 12.12.2010 as per Sikh rites and customs, and a girl child was born to them. Due to differences that cropped up between the husband and wife, the wife has been residing separately from the husband since July 2016, along with their minor child. On 20.09.2016, an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the wife against the husband. An application seeking interim maintenance had been also been filed by the wife. The Ld. M.M. granted interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month, in addition to education expenses of the minor child. Both the parties filed cross-appeals against this Order before the Ld. ASJ. Vide impugned Order dated 06.03.2021, the Ld. ASJ allowed the appeal of the wife and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 45,000/- per month to a total of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month (with both the wife and the minor child receiving Rs. 62,500/-).
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enhancement of interim maintenance by the Ld. Appellate Court has been done solely on the basis of the husband’s “capacity to earn” and not his actual earning. He submitted that the Ld. Appellate Court has failed to take into account the fact that the husband had lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, not only was the impugned Order erroneous on facts but, as per the learned Counsel, it was also erroneous on law because it disregarded the criteria for deciding the quantum of interim maintenance. It was stated that the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month is an oppressive amount, especially in view of the fact that the husband has been unemployed since August 2020 and has been unable to secure a job.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021 is bad in law as well as facts as it fails to take into account the true earning of the husband and has only calculated the interim maintenance of Rs. 1,25,000/- based on the lower level of the income in the ITR documents of the husband. It was argued that the calculation for interim maintenance must take into account the prospective increase of the husband’s income as well the yearly inflation. The impugned Order does not reflect the yearly increase of 10% and thus, renders the wife and minor child with a fixed sum which may not be sufficient considering the future costs of living. Furthermore, he informed the Court that the husband does not have any other liabilities or dependents, and therefore, he has the means to sustain the wife and minor child.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that Section 20 of the DV Act stipulates that a Magistrate hearing an application under Section 12 of the DV Act may direct the Respondent to pay certain monetary relief to the aggrieved person. Court stated that a careful and just balance is to be drawn between all the relevant factors, and the test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the husband, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial.
HC stated that it is well settled that unless the impugned Order is grossly erroneous, fails to comply with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, the material evidence has been ignored or judicial discretion exercised is arbitrary or perverse, then the High Court must be slow in interfering with the same. The High Court cannot substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the Courts below who have rendered their decision after considering all the material on record.
HC observed that the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Appellate Court reveals that the Ld. ASJ has patiently weighed the settled law pertaining to the criteria that must be adopted while calculating interim maintenance under the DV Act. Furthermore, the Ld. ASJ has correctly noted that even if it is proved that the wife is capable of earning and is a working professional, it is still no ground to deny her interim maintenance. HC observed that the Ld. Appellate Court has carefully arrived at the aforesaid conclusion pertaining to the average monthly income of the husband after carefully considering both the Order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 21.02.2018 as well as the material placed before it.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “This Court is of the opinion that the observations of the Ld. Appellate Court do not betray any legal or factual infirmity. It complies with the law of the land and has taken into account the material on record before arriving at its decision to enhance the interim maintenance to wife and minor child to Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. This Court finds no merit in the submissions of either the wife or the husband challenging the said Order and, therefore, does not deem it fit to interfere in the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Jaspreet Singh v. Swaneet Kukreja
Case Details: CRL.REV. P. 162/2021 & CRL.M.As. 5576/2021, 8691/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
