Latest News
Back
Document:
Mere establishment of the capability to earn cannot be reason for curtailing maintenance: Delhi HC
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri dismissed a revision petition on 06/12/2019. The revision petition challenged the order of the Family Court which had directed the petitioner husband was ordered to pay Rs. 33,005 every month as maintenance of the wife-respondent and their minor child.
This above order was given by a magistrate while reviewing the application the application under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC resorted to by the respondent wherein she complained that she had been thrown out of her matrimonial home and thus was living in her paternal home with her maternal child. The respondent claimed that since she was not a working woman and hence was left with no source of income. Thus the respondent claimed a monthly allowance of 80,000 rupees per month. The petitioner on the other hand said that he was an Executive Chef and earned 88,000 a month. He was looking after his old parents and had other liabilities towards loan and rent. The advocate for the petitioner said that the respondent had a LLB degree and had a sufficient income to look after herself. The advocate of the respondent vehemently opposed this review petition.
The HC said that there was no proof of the fact that his wife had any substantial income. Regarding the case of Shailja v. Khobbana, (2018) 12 SCC 199, the SC had held that the capacity of earning and the actual earning are two entirely different things. Mere establishment of the fact that the wife can earn I not a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The HC thus held that the previous order had no illegality in it and thus dismissed the petition.
Arun Vats v. Pallavi Sharma, Crl Revision Petition No. 751 of 2018
Document:
