***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. –

1. This order determines two revision petitions, both challenging judgment dated 20.12.2023 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula. Prayer in CRR(F)-240-2024 filed by Saurabh Khandelwal is for setting aside the impugned judgment. The prayer in CRR-493-2024 filed by Shefali Khandelwal is for modification of the judgment and enhancement of maintenance pendente lite from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.50,000/- month.

2. For clarity and better appreciation, parties shall be referred to as husband and wife.

3. The parties were married on 29.04.2013 at Shahjahanpur, U.P. as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They lived together in Gurugram where they were working, upto 29.03.2017. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.02.2019 averring that despite sufficient expenditure incurred on the marriage by her parents, the husband and his family members treated her with cruelty, taunted and insulted her and raised demands. Both the parties were working at Gurugram where a house was rented for Rs.25,000/-. Her entire salary was taken by the husband who disappeared on 29.03.2017 without informing her, forcing her to bear entire household expenses. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife and a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband. The wife deserted by the husband, was forced to reside at Panchkula with her parents. She was earlier working with DLF Brands at Gurugram and when the petition was filed, she was working from home from Panchkula. Her father was a cancer patient. Attitude of the husband was scornful. She was treated rudely with disrespect, she and her parents were constantly harassed to shell out more money. She was unable to live at Gurugram due to financial constraints and safety concerns and had to leave the job. She was dependent on her parents for all expenses and was hard pressed to make both ends meet whereas the husband was working with RBS Gurugram earning Rs.15,00,000/- per annum. Maintenance allowance of Rs.60,000/- has been claimed.

4. The husband filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition, cause of action, estoppel etc. He claimed that the wife was highly educated, earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month and was capable of maintaining herself. She had deserted and neglected the husband and was not entitled to any maintenance. She had been planning to harass and desert the husband from the very beginning. Allegations of cruelty, misbehaviour and demands levelled by the wife were denied. It was stated that the wife was dancing to the tunes of her father and brother who unduly interfered in her matrimonial life. The marriage at Shahjahanpur, UP was simple one. For 4 years, the parties cohabited in the rented house of the husband. The flat where they were living was also furnished by his parents. He provided best of amenities and comforts to the wife and helped her in all household works. The wife, on the other hand, was of suspicious nature and regularly quarrelled with him. She did not perform her matrimonial obligations and took undue advantage of the husband’s compromising nature. She was non-adjusting, short tempered, stubborn and egoistic. She did not do household works and abused the husband and did not respect his father causing him mental and physical shock. She also fought with his mother and did not wish to serve his parents. She refused for physical relations causing deep mental trauma. She was habitual of taking excessive alcohol, partying late at night and neglected her matrimonial duties. She had been filing false police complaints against him to create pressure. In June, 2017, she refused to have any kind of physical relations with him and also stopped talking to him. Efforts were made by the husband to settle the dispute amicably but the matter could not be resolved. Petitioner was determined to break the matrimonial home with her unreasonable behaviour and had deserted the husband. Her willful act and conduct caused severe mental cruelty and depression to the husband and she was solely responsible for the breakup.

5. The husband further stated that he took every possible step to save the matrimonial life but to no effect. In compelling circumstances, he filed a divorce petition which was now transferred to Panchkula. The wife left Gurugram in October 2018. She was a resourceful lady having sufficient income and means to maintain herself and was not entitled to any maintenance. She was still earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She was highly qualified with degree of Bachelors of Technology (Fashion and Apparel Engineering) from MDU, Rohtak and was working as Manager in DLF Brands Limited drawing salary of Rs.74,670/- in the year 2016 whereafter she was promoted and at present was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She was not unable to maintain herself and had deserted the husband without any sufficient reason. She was now living in adultery. Prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 09.03.2022:

“i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance as prayed? OPP

ii) Whether the petition is entitled to not maintainable? OPR

iii) Relief”

7. The wife herself appeared as PW8 to state her pleaded case on oath. She examined 7 other witnesses to prove the account statements. The husband examined himself as RW1 besides 8 other witnesses to prove account statements and income of the wife.

8. Learned Family Court observed that salary of the husband was Rs.24,12,738/- per annum. His father who was owner of sugar mill was not dependent on him. There were huge transactions in his bank account. The salary of the wife was found to be Rs.49,351/- as per statement of RW-8 Chander Shekhar Tiwari, Nodal Officer and Rs.73267/- in the month of September, 2022. Noticing the disparity in salaries and the legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife, the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife from the date of filing of the petition till the date of judgment and thereafter @ Rs.50,000/- per month till she was remarried, besides litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

9. Dissatisfied, both the husband and wife have challenged the decision.

10. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the wife had concealed material facts from the Court and had also made endeavour to mislead the Court. Both the husband and wife were working, earning handsomely and the wife was now residing with her parents. The award of Rs.50,000/- per month to the wife would fetch her Rs.1,40,000/- per month including her salary which was unjust. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife was maintaining a PPF account and had various FDRs. There were heavy transactions in her bank account statements which she had concealed in her pleadings as also in her affidavit of income, assets and liabilities. There was no pleading in the application that the wife was unable to maintain herself nor it was so recorded by learned Principal Judge, Family Court while assessing maintenance. Inability to maintain was a pre-condition to grant of maintenance. The wife had various FDRs, investments in stocks, PPF for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, gold bonds and award of Rs.50,000/- per month to the wife was too excessive. The impugned order therefore deserved to be set aside. In support of his prayer, he refers to the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Geeta and Another Vs. The State and Another 2025 NCDHC 7930 , Niharika Ghosh alias Niharika Kundu Vs. Shankar Ghosh 2023 NCDHC 6553 as well as judgment of this Court in Meetu alias Ritu Vs. Amandeep 2024: PHHC: 123862.

11. Learned counsel for the wife, though conceded that the wife was well-qualified and gainfully employed, prayed for further enhancement of maintenance allowance arguing that the joint locker of the parties was operated by the husband in her absence without her knowledge. The wife’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed ex parte whereas the divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed. The husband had throughout harassed and ill-treated the wife and the harassment was continuing. The wife, who was neglected by the husband who refused to maintain her, was entitled to the same standard of living as the husband. Award of maintenance by learned Family Court w.e.f. the date of order was balanced and proportionate but deserved to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month even during pendency of the petition.

12. Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 29.04.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Shahjahanpur (U.P.). The couple cohabited at Gurugram, where both of them were working up to 29.03.2017. No child was born out of the wedlock. A petition (Mark-P2) under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the wife on 14.07.2017, which was allowed on 18.03.2019 vide judgment Ex.PW8/13. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage, which was dismissed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram on 02.08.2021 vide judgment Ex.PW8/12, for want of evidence. Undisputedly, both the judgments have attained finality.

13. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife on 13.02.2019 alleging cruelty and demands by the husband and his family members. The husband, on the other hand, claimed that it was the wife, who had neglected and deserted him, refused to perform her matrimonial obligations and her quarrelsome nature, neglect, late-night parties, and misbehaviour caused him severe mental cruelty and deprivation.

14. The wife, who has examined herself as PW8 has tendered affidavit Ex.PW8/A claiming that despite Rs.50,00,000/- spent and valuable gifts, jewellery etc. given by her father at the time of marriage as per demands of the husband and his family members, they were not satisfied. They raised demand for dowry, car etc. and treated her with extreme cruelty in connection with demands for dowry. Her entire income used to be usurped for repayment of loans or for payment of EMIs. She was taunted, insulted and treated with extreme cruelty. The husband too has appeared to state his pleaded case on oath.

15. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature, as such, the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be examined. In such proceedings, it is not necessary to ascertain as to who was in the wrong (vide Sunita Kachwaha and Others vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715). At the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the divorce petition filed by the husband wherein he levelled allegations of cruelty, desertion etc. has since been declined and the order has attained finality. The salutary purpose behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the wife from being subjected to adversities of vagrancies and to ensure that she is not left to lead a life of indignity.

16. Undisputedly, the wife is professionally qualified and is a working woman. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. In Shailja and Another vs. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, it was held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. In Sunita Kachwaha’s case (supra), the wife had a postgraduate degree and was employed as a teacher. The husband raised contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. Hon’ble Supreme Court repelled the contention holding that merely because wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

17. The wife is professionally qualified, is armed with an engineering degree (B.Tech in Fashion and Apparel) and is gainfully employed in reputed institutions. At the time of filing of the petition, she was residing at her parental home in Panchkula. In her affidavit of assets, income and expenditure filed on 11.08.2021, she disclosed that she was working as Senior Associate in OYO Hotel and Homes Private Limited and earning monthly income of Rs.50,746/- per month. She also disclosed one FDR amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, one PPF account and investment in sovereign gold bond amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-. She has not disclosed the amount lying in PPF account. When she stepped into the witness box as PW8, she disclosed in her affidavit that she was earning Rs.50,000/- per month being Senior Associate with OYO Hotel and Homes Private Limited. She stated that in June, 2018, she was earning salary of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum from her employer DLF, Gurugram. She stated that her current salary was approximately Rs.60,000/- per month in hand and also admitted that she received incentives based on her performance. Later, she stated that her company was paying her around Rs.62,000/- per month as salary. As per RW8/E, duly proved by RW8-Chander Shekhar Tiwari, Nodal Officer, OYO Hotels, Gurugram, her gross salary in March, 2023 was Rs.79,066/- and net salary after statutory deductions was Rs.71,619/-.

18. The husband has stepped into the witness box as RW1. In his affidavit of assets, income and expenditure, the husband disclosed his net income to be Rs.1,16,649/- per month. He stated that his father was a businessman and that he had taken loan amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- for purchase of car for which he was paying EMI. The husband is employed in RBS Services India Private Limited as Engineer since 30.08.2011. PW3- Aparajita, HR Consultant in the company has brought on record his pay slips for the month January, 2022, Ex.PW3/C to July, 2022 Ex.PW3/I. The husband’s gross income in January, 2022 was Rs.1,51,507/- and net pay after statutory deductions was Rs.1,28,057/-. In July, 2022, his gross income was Rs.1,79,777/- (say Rs.1,80,000/-) and after statutory deductions his net pay was Rs.1,35,470/-. As per Ex.PW3/N duly proved by PW3-Aparajita, his fixed pay was Rs.24,12,738/- per annum. From this amount, statutory deductions would have to be taken into account.

The petitioner has no liabilities. Respondent too has no liability as his father is a businessman and running sugar plant and has independent income. There is undoubtedly financial disparity in the income of the parties. There can be no denying that the wife is entitled to maintenance amount as would enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before separation. At the same time, however, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the wife has sufficient independent means to maintain herself. Both the parties are equally qualified professionally. The wife as well as the husband have an engineering degree. The husband is earning substantial amount from his employment as Serum Master in RBS Services India Private Limited. The wife too has remained gainfully employed in reputed institutions which only reflects upon her professional merit, competence, capability and potential. A plethora of documents, bank account statements of both the parties have been produced on record which show heavy transactions both sides.

19. Though, there is considerable discretion bestowed on the Courts for assessment of maintenance, the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula to assess maintenance, particularly for an earning wife. It is not the law that income of both the sides should be clubbed together to be divided by two or that a fixed proportion of income of the husband be awarded to the wife. It is also not the law that the wife should get half or even a substantial portion of the husband’s salary, who is earning more. The High Court of Rajasthan in Ritu Khatri Vs. Navneet Khanna 2026:RJ-JD:2380 has observed that such an approach would amount to converting maintenance proceedings into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property, which is impermissible.

20. No doubt, the wife would be entitled to supplementary/ supportive maintenance. Determination of the quantum, would however require exercise of judicial restraint and balance in the facts and circumstances of the case where both the parties are well-off, equally qualified and working professionals.

21. As per affidavit of income and assets filed by the wife, her monthly expenses are Rs.60,000/-. The claim for Rs.60,000/- in the application was made including the monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- of the house in Gurugram which the parties were earlier jointly occupying. The wife has candidly admitted in the cross-examination that she has vacated the house in the year ending 2018 i.e. before filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The expenses on himself which the husband has disclosed in his affidavit of assets, income and expenditure is Rs.95,000/- per month. The wife was earning Rs.79,000/- per month from her employment in OYO Hotel and Homes Private Limited in March, 2023.

22. Learned Trial court appears to have been swayed to award Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the wife being 25% of the husband’s gross salary without taking into consideration the statutory deductions from his income, his general expenses and the professional qualifications and earnings of the wife. Though, the wife would be entitled to supplementary maintenance, the award of Rs.50,000/- per month does not appear to be conscionable and balanced. Such a large sum every month would only encourage the wife to lead a life of complacency without motivation for further professional growth in her career. Considering the earning potential of the wife, her qualifications, her past and present employment and the bright chances of her career progression, the award of Rs.50,000/- per month appears to this Court to be perverse, requiring intervention of this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. As such, the quantum of maintenance allowance is reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from the date of the judgment. Maintenance pendente lite i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month with effect from the date of application till the final determination does not require any interference.

23. The revision petitions filed by both the parties stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********