Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing a criminal review petition filed by one Kanupriya Sharma, challenging an order of the appellate court wherein an order awarding interim maintenance to Kanupriya of Rs.16, 500 per month was set aside.
The court observed in the said case that -
"There is no material produced by Respondent no. 2 either before the Trial Court, Appellate Court or before this court to show that the Petitioner, in fact, had secured any employment or was receiving any salary or income. An application under Section 23(1) of the D.V. Act is an application for fixing interim maintenance. Interim maintenance is fixed on taking a prima facie view of the matter. Serious disputed questions of facts raised at that stage, requiring evidence cannot be gone into. Unless undisputed evidence is produced by the husband clearly establishing that the wife is gainfully employed, relief of interim maintenance cannot be declined."
The bench further observed that -
"As noticed above, no material has been produced by Respondent no. 2 to show that the Petitioner is gainfully employed or receiving any salary and actually earning. The pleas raised by the Respondent no. 2 would be required to be established at trial. Till Respondent no. 2 establishes by leading cogent evidence that Petitioner is gainfully employed and receiving salary, there is no justification to deny maintenance to the Petitioner-wife."
Thus, the petition was allowed and the trial court's order awarding maintenance of Rs.16, 500 per month for the wife was restored.