CRL.M.C./7371/2024 of PRADEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Signature Not Verified

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 16.04.2025

+CRL.M.C. 7371/2024 & CRL.M.A. 28112/2024

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Hitesh Wali, APP for State.Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Mr. ShauryaLamba, Mr. Sanidhya Chowdhry andMs. Harishmita Singh, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting asideof the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge,Family Court, Patiala House Courts in MT Case No. 206/2021 titled as Pushpa& Anr Vs Pradeep Panwar whereby the petitioner was directed to pay sum ofRs. 13,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance.

2.The brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of the present petitionare that the petitioner/husband and respondent no. 2/wife got married on14.04.2019. child, namely Master Tarush, was born out of said wedlock on09.03.2020. There were few issues in the marriage that led to the separationon 28.01.2021.

CRL.M.C. 7371/2024

Page 1 of 8

Signature Not Verified

3.Thereafter, on 11.12.2021 respondent no.2/wife filed MaintenancePetition being MT Case No. 206/2021 under section 125 CrPC praying formaintenance. The learned Trial court vide order dated 31.10.2022 directed thePetitioner to deposit Rs.5000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance formaintenance of minor child. Later, vide impugned order dated 03.06.2024, thelearned Trial court granted Rs. 13,000/- per month as interim maintenance tothe wife and minor child of the petitioner. The present petition is filed againstthe said impugned order.

4.This court vide order dated 18.09.2024 granted stay on impugned ordersubject to deposit of Rs. 1,20,000/- in this Court. The said amount wasdeposited on 04.10.2024 and since then stay on impugned order is continuing.

5.Mr. Siddhant Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner/husbandsubmits that the impugned order has been passed without considering therelevant facts of the case as the learned Trial Court has failed to considerrelevant factors like the duration of marriage of the parties and the documentaryevidence placed on record. The learned Trial court has ignored the fact that therespondent no. 2/wife has subjected the petitioner to cruelties and has herselfdeserted the company of the petitioner along with their minor child without anyreasonable cause. The learned Trial Court has overlooked the fact thatrespondent no. 2 is postgraduate and had worked with companies like JetAirways and Career Endeavour (New Delhi), earning salary of Rs. 23,500/-per month until March 2020.

6.Mr. Gautam submitted that respondent no. 2 is still employed at acompany called ‘Satadru Technology private limited’ and is holding another

CRL.M.C. 7371/2024

Page 2 of 8

Signature Not Verified

bank account which is not mentioned in income affidavit filed before learnedTrial Court.

7.He draws attention of the Court to the entries in the bank statement ofrespondent no.2, to submit that substantial amount is lying deposited inrespondent no.2’s bank account. The learned Trial Court has not consideredsuch deposits while passing the impugned order. Further, the learned TrialCourt has ignored the fact that the petitioner is the only son and has to maintainhis parents apart from maintaining self and the minor child.

8.Mr. Gautam submits that the reason respondent no.2 chose to remain idledespite having the experience, qualifications, and capacity to work, is to imposea liability on the petitioner. He places reliance on the decision of this court inGurpreet Dhariwal vs. Amit Jain, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1066 andDamanpreetKaurvs.IndermeetJuneja,CriminalRevisionPetition344/2011.

9.On the other hand, Mr. Anindya Malhotra the learned counsel for therespondent no. 2/wife has supported the impugned order and submits that thereis no illegality in the same.

10.He invites attention of this Court to the affidavit dated 13.11.2024 filedby the petitioner before this Court pursuant to direction given to the petitionervide order dated 18.09.2024, to show the amount paid by petitioner as interimmaintenance is amounting to Rs.2,31,200/-. He submits that petitioner has triedto mislead this Court as perusal of the said affidavit would reveal that theentries mentioned in the said affidavit at serial nos.1-5 are prior to the date ofmarriage i.e. 14.04.2019. Hence, the same cannot be taken into account as

Page 3 of 8

interim maintenance paid. He further submits that the entries mentioned atserial nos.6-15 also cannot be counted as interim maintenance paid to therespondent no. 2 since the maintenance petition bearing MT Case No.206/2021was filed on 11.12.2021 and the said entries pertain to 21.04.2019 to31.01.2021, which are much prior to the date of filing of the said maintenancepetition.

11.He submits that the petitioner has also admitted to the receipt of Rs.99,351/- from the account of the respondent no.2 which was obtained by himby pressuring the respondent no.2 while she was staying in matrimonial home.

12.Mr. Malhotra submits that the respondent no.2/wife left the matrimonialhouse on 28.01.2021 due to constant physical, emotional and financial crueltysubjected by the petitioner and his family members upon her and therefore, shewas compelled to leave her matrimonial home and reside at her parental homealongwith her minor child.

13.He further submits that respondent no.2 stopped working since08.02.2020 on account of her pregnancy. She did not take up any job after birthof the child on 09.03.2020 and has never worked in ‘Satadru TechnologiesPrivate Ltd’ The learned Trial Court has also acknowledged this fact in theimpugned order and observed that there is only one entry of Rs. 3922/- fromSatadru Technologies Private Ltd. which was made on 19.04.2022 and no othertransactions were found before or after that date, which suggests thatrespondent no. 2 was not employed anywhere.

14.He submits that the entries of Rs. 13,000/- on 29.04.2022 and Rs.32,000/- on 31.05.2022 in Respondent No. 2's bank account are self-transfers.

Page 4 of 8

Signature Not Verified

These funds were transferred by her family members for the upkeep ofrespondent no. 2 and the minor child.

15.He submits that the petitioner is drawing additional income fromcoaching center. perusal of his bank statement would reveal various entriesof small denominations from various people as tuition fee. Further the bankstatement of the Petitioner of HDFC Bank account bearing No. 5010022313051for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 is reflecting deposit of Rs.16,45,541/-,which is cleverly transferred by petitioner in different account. He submitsthat the petitioner has also cleverly omitted to mention in his income affidavitfiled before the learned Trial Court in the Maintenance Petition about two FDsof Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on which he has been enjoying interest.

16.He further submits that the petitioner with mala fide intention to reduceamount of interim maintenance took two loans on 20.03.2022 amountingRs.37,670/- and Rs.46,960/- to purchase air conditioner and televisionrespectively after removing respondent no. 2 from matrimonial home.

17.He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inRajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324 to submit that in the said decisionit was held that even if the wife is educated and capable of supporting herself, itwould not absolve the husband from paying interim maintenance.

18.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learnedcounsel for the respondents and have perused the record.

19.At the stage of grant of interim maintenance, the Family Court is onlyexpected to make broad estimation of the earnings of the husband, as well as,wife in order to fairly assess the grant of interim maintenance. The law is well

CRL.M.C. 7371/2024

Page 5 of 8

Signature Not Verified

settled that Section 125 of CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony,anguish and financial sufferings of woman who is required to leave thematrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enableher to sustain herself and the children[1].

20.Before the Family Court, both the parties had filed their respectiveincome affidavits and the copies of the same are available on the record of thepresent petition. perusal of the income affidavit of the petitioner husbandshows that he has admitted that he is working as Mathematics Teacher inAravali Institute School and is drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. Therespondent no.2/wife in her income affidavit has claimed that she isunemployed and dependant on her parents. She has further claimed that hergeneral monthly expenses are Rs.50,000/- per month and she also has sonfrom the wedlock, who is presently aged about 5 years. She has claimedexpenses of the minor child including food, clothing, medicine, etc. asRs.15,000/- per month.

21.The petitioner has though claimed that the respondent no.2/wife isemployed with ‘Satadru Technology Pvt. Ltd.’ and there is also one entry ofRs.3,922/- in her account from the said company, however, no evidence hasbeen placed on record to establish that the respondent no.2/wife is workingwith the said company or with any other employer. On the basis of single creditentry of Rs.3,922/- it cannot be inferred that the respondent no.2/wife isemployed with ‘Satadru Technology Pvt. Ltd’.

1 Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353

Page 6 of 8

Signature Not Verified

22.The contention of the petitioner is that he has parents to support and isalso paying monthly fees of Rs.5,000/- for his B.Ed. course, but again there isno evidence furnished by the petitioner to prove the payment of such fee.

23.Insofar as the dependant parents of the petitioner are concerned, itappears that while awarding maintenance, the said aspect has been kept in mindby the learned Family Court though it has not specifically been discussed.

24.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) has comprehensivelylisted various factors which have to be taken into consideration for determiningmaintenance. It was observed that careful and just balance must be drawnbetween all relevant factors. It was held that an able-bodied husband must bepresumed to be capable to earn sufficient money to maintain his wife andchildren, and cannot contend that he is not in position to earn sufficiently tomaintain his family. It was further observed that the courts have held that if thewife is earning, it cannot operate as bar from being awarded maintenance bythe husband.

25.Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted case of thepetitioner that his monthly income is Rs.40,000/- whereas it has not beenestablished on record that the respondent no.2/wife is working and having anyincome of her own. Besides that, the justification put forth by the respondentno.2/wife that on 09.03.2020, she was blessed with child and prior thereto, onaccount of pregnancy, she had given up her employment and did not take upfresh employment to look after the child, appears to be cogent and reasonable.Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in para 8 above wouldhave no application to the facts of the present case.

Page 7 of 8

Signature Not Verified

26.Considering the income of the petitioner as Rs.40,000/- per month andtotal members of the family being five, including the petitioner’s parents andthe respondent no.2/wife, as well as, minor child, this court finds that themonthly maintenance awarded to the respondent no.2/wife for herself and forthe child as Rs.13,000/- per month, is fair and justified amount as interimmaintenance. Even if the admitted monthly income of Rs.40,000/- is split intofive shares, still the respondent no.2/wife and her minor child would be entitledto two shares of Rs.8,000/- each which will total up to Rs.16,000/-

27.In view of the above discussion, this court finds no infirmity in the orderpassed by the learned Family Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed beingdevoid of merit. Resultantly, the pending application also stands disposed of.

28.Consequently, the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- deposited by petitioner interms of this court’s order dated 18.09.2024, which was directed to be investedin FDR, be released forthwith to respondent no.2/wife along with interestaccrued thereon.

29.The learned Family Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial,preferably within period of six months.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

APRIL 16, 2025/N.S.ASWAL

CRL.M.C. 7371/2024