Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 decided both the applications, whereby the petitioner's application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the respondent's application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The observations made in the said order are as under:

"...Now applying this above said principals in the case in hand, the application/wife in her affidavit has stated that she is not working and earning but in her petition in Para 44 she herself has mentioned that she is working as Attendant in the Batra Hospital Nursing Home and earning Rs. 6000/- per month. Even her reply to the application U/s 127 of Cr.PC filed by the respondent/husband is quite evasive and she has nowhere disclosed, whether she is working or not. She has only filed one statement of account of Corporation Bank of 2015 which shows only two transactions. It is a well settled principal of law that those coming to the Court must come to the Court with clean hands but it seems that petitioner/wife herself has tried to play fraud upon the Court as in her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C she has stated that she started working after the marriage and earning Rs. 6000/- per month but in her affidavit, she has completely denied this fact and has stated that she is not working. Non - applicant/husband has stated that he has also taken housing loan for which he is regularly paying EMI of Rs. 23,000/- per month. Therefore, his liability to this effect cannot be ignored by this Court. Though, petitioner/wife came to the Court seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband but despite the orders of the Hon'ble High Court again and again she herself has not complied with the directions of the Court and she has not filed her account statement. In his application U/s 127 of Cr.P.C, the respondent/husband has taken plea that applicant/wife was previously working in Jeewan Hospital but in reply there is no specific denial. Moreover, a certificate to this effect issued by the Jeewan Nursing Home shows that Chanchal was working in the hospital labour room. This certificate is dated 15.12.2013 which is much prior to the filing of the present petition and thereafter, petitioner herself has admitted that she started working in Batra Nursing Home after the marriage. Though she has stated her income to be Rs. 6000/- per month but it may be mentioned that even the minimum wages for a unskilled worker is more than that. For working as an attendant in the labour room, it cannot be accepted that the nursing home will not even provide the minimum monthly wages to the petitioner/wife. It shows that she has concealed her true income from the Court. The respondent/husband in his application u/s 127 of Cr.P.C has clearly stated that he has responsibility of his parents and younger brother also in addition to the payment of EMI to the house loan, which he has taken. No doubt, it is the responsibility of the respondent to provide the maintenance to his legally wedded wife but in the present case, it is clear that the petitioner/wife is working and earning and even if her income is taken as per minimum wages, still she cannot be earning less than Rs. 10,000/- per month. Keeping in view the monthly income of the respondent/husband and his responsibility and further status of both the parties, the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by petitioner/wife is dismissed and the application U/s 127 of Cr.P.C filed by respondent/husband is disposed off in above said terms."
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded Under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded Under Section 24 of the Act..."

Observations and Findings

21. Coming to the facts in hand, the Respondent had moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of order dated 09.08.2017. The relevant portion of the said application, relying upon which the learned Trial court has based its judgment, reads as under:

22. It is pertinent to note that the parties in this case were married on 21.01.2014. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the petitioner's claim for maintenance, observed that the petitioner had been working in the year 2013, since a certificate dated 15.12.2013 proving the employment of the petitioner was available on record. The learned Trial Court also observed that the petitioner was employed even after her marriage, up to the year 2015. The learned Trial court then went on to hold, on the basis of her previous employments and on basis of a resume of the petitioner filed by the respondent, that the petitioner was employed at the time of filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and passing of the impugned order as well. However, in the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the respondent had not filed any material, except a mere resume of the petitioner, to prove that the petitioner was working on the date when the petition was filed and when the impugned order was passed. The learned Trial Court further presumed that the petitioner must be earning at least minimum wages, without there being any iota of evidence of any income or employment of the petitioner.

31. The learned Trial Court while dismissing the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and allowing the application under section 127 Cr.P.C held that the Court has to consider the fact that the respondent was paying Rs. 23,000/- per month towards EMI of a housing loan and also maintaining his parents and 26-year-old brother. In the opinion of this court, the learned Judge committed an error while holding so, since by paying EMI, the respondent was creating an asset for himself, which further points out that he has enough means and strong financial capacity. It is settled position of law that compulsory deductions are permissible to be deducted to calculate income of husband.