ALIKA BUX SINGH Vs. KUMARI NIDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against impugned judgment dtd. 22/3/2019 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in case No. MT 124/2018, whereby, an application under Sec. 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 dtd. 5/8/2016 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 1/5/2002, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the mother of the respondent as per Hindu rites and rituals. On 6/8/2003, 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 Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and thereafter he filed the reply and vide first impugned order dtd. 5/8/2016, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.5,000.00 per month. However, vide final impugned order dtd. 22/3/2019 which is the second impugned order, the learned Family Court granted a maintenance of Rs.6,000.00 per month to the respondent w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition i.e. 5/9/2013 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.2,400.00, quarterly, whereas, she was getting a rebate of Rs.1,800.00 per month. It has also been stated that the mother of the respondent is getting a sum of Rs.48,000.00 per month as salary from Ghaziabad Development Authority whereas, the total income of the petitioner is about Rs.7,800.00 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.16,482.00 and accordingly maintenance for sum of Rs.6,000.00 has been awarded to respondent whereas, the minimum wages applicable to the petitioner is of Uttar Pradesh, which is Rs.8,000.00 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 and Anr.1 Crl. Rev. P.792/2018 decided on 3/6/2022.