0

It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial: The High Court of Delhi

Ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Court in appeal. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact, the High Court is not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. The aforesaid has been established by the Apex Court in the case of State v. Manimaran reported as (2019) 13 SCC 670 and this non-interference policy has been extensively adopted by the Delhi High Court in the instant case of Sudhir Gupta v. Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Gupta [ CRL.M.C. 1117/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5684/2021(stay)] which was decided by a single judge bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad on 14th June 2021.

The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner and the respondent got married in 2014 and gave birth to a child who later expired. Differences arose between the couple and the left the matrimonial house in 2016. Later, the respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of DV Act praying for direction to the petitioner herein to let the respondent herein reside in the shared household, granting injunction against the family members of the petitioner from repeating any acts of violence mentioned in the complaint and for grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The respondent herein also filed an application under Section 23 of the DV Act for grant of maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in 2018 declined to grant interim maintenance to the respondent herein on the ground that the respondent herein was working and that she, being a well-qualified spouse, is not entitled to interim maintenance.

Against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, a Criminal Appeal, was filed by the respondent herein before the learned Additional Session Judge. The order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded back. After perusing the material on record the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.16,500/- per month, from the date of the petition till the disposal of the case, to the respondent herein as interim maintenance. This Particular order has been challenged by the petitioner herein.

The arguments contended by both the parties have been stated below. The counsel for petitioner threw light on the fact that respondent has been giving contradictory statements to different forums. He contended that the petitioner is merely 12th passed and earns a meagre amount whereas the respondent is post-graduate from IGNOU, has got a Diploma in Apparel Manufacturing Technology from ATDC Gurgaon and she is much more educated and capable of earning substantial amount of money. He contended that the respondent is not working just to harass the petitioner.

The court conducted an in depth perusal of the facts and arguments presented in the instant case. It relied on the decision taken in the case of Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 and stated that “The reasoning of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, as affirmed by The learned Additional Session Judge, does not call for any interference. The scope of revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C is narrow. Courts do not go into excruciating details on facts and unless the judgments of the courts below are so perverse High Court does not interfere with concurrent findings.”

click here for judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat