Viney Gupta vs Raj Rani

Surinder Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Family Court, Ambala, whereby the respondent has been allowed maintenance @ Rs. 5,000 per month.

Briefly stated, the respondent filed a petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000 per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 22,000. She got married with petitioner on 10.02.2000 at Hotel Malik Regency, Ambala City according to Hindu rites and ceremonies but due to the persistent demands of dowry and impotence of petitioner, the respondent was tortured and harassed and ultimately sent to her parents house in October, 2000 with the assurance that she will be called back after 15/20 days. The respondent was taken to her matrimonial home in June, 2001 but the behaviour of petitioner and his family members did not change and they again harassed her and raised demand of dowry. She was tortured for not conceiving a child and on medical check-up from the doctors, the problem was found with the petitioner. He took treatment from PGI, Chandigarh but his problem did not cure. Petitioner and his family members used to give beatings to the respondent and turned her out from the matrimonial home after every 20 days or a month. The matrimonial discord, harassment and torture of the petitioner continued till the year 2007 when she was turned out of her matrimonial house. It was alleged by the respondent that petitioner was running a handloom shop in Main Bazaar, Ambala City and also doing dry-cleaning work, thereby earning more than Rs. 30,000 per month.

The petitioner denied the allegations levelled by the respondent. He denied his liability to pay maintenance to her on the ground that the marriage of petitioner with respondent has already been dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the ground that respondent has willfully deserted the petitioner. The petitioner also denied the income as stated by the respondent.

Learned District Judge, Family Court, Ambala observed in her order dated 06.12.2013 that the respondent being unable to maintain herself, is entitled to claim maintenance and by assessing the income of the petitioner as Rs. 10,000 per month, allowed the maintenance @ Rs. 5,000 per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent has already been allowed the maintenance @ Rs. 3,000 per month in the divorce proceedings in appeal. She has not been able to prove the income of the petitioner as Rs. 30,000 or even Rs. 10,000 per month, as such, she is not entitled to get the maintenance @ Rs. 5,000 per month.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there was substance in the plea raised by the respondent that petitioner was running the business of dry-cleaning. He had raised the plea that the shop in which the business of cry-cleaning was being conducted, was sold by his father. He had taken the plea that by doing the job, he was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500 per month which was not proved. In the absence of any proof, the trial Court assessed the income of petitioner as Rs. 10,000 per month and allowed the maintenance @ Rs. 5,000 per month to the respondent.

This fact has not been disputed that the respondent even after divorce is entitled to get the maintenance till her re-marriage. It is also not disputed that no evidence was produced before the trial Court that she was earning any income to maintain herself. Under these circumstances, the maintenance allowed to the respondent @ Rs. 5,000 per month cannot be termed as a maintenance on higher side. In these days of high cost of living, it is not possible to get both ends meet with a meager amount of Rs. 5,000 as maintenance per month.

I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, calling for interference by this Court. This revision petition has no merits.

Dismissed in limine.