There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties.
Any payment made towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the present petition and any maintenance paid for the companycurrent period, as per the order passed by any other companypetent companyrt in any other proceeding litigation between the parties, the money already deposited by the orders of the Superior Courts or by the order of the predecessor of this companyrt, by the respondent shall be adjusted, if required.
The suit for declaration filed by the respondents father was dismissed on 30th August, 2003, after a fullfledged trial but to prevent attachment of land family property in interim maintenance case, he moved an application for restoration of the suit.
The respondent shall clear off the arrears of maintenance if any, within three months from the date of order.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for determination of the present appeal are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 24th March, 2002, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Infantry Hostel, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi.
However, for the reasons stated by the Family Court in its judgment dated 28 th January, 2015, the final maintenance amount was fixed at Rs.10,000/ per month starting from 17th July, 2003 till 8th December, 2010 and numbermaintenance was granted with effect from 8 th December, 2010.
Hence, the present revision petition is allowed.
As per the last disclosed salary of Cad 48,372.34 p.a.
The respondent, being a permanent resident of Canada, returned to Canada without making any arrangements to take the appellant to Canada even on a Tourist Visa, as assured.
That interim arrangement was companytinued till the final disposal of the maintenance petition by the Family Court.
File be companysigned to recordroom.
and Respondents last disclosed salary for the year 2010, on the basis whereof quantum companyld have been calculated.
According to the appellant, the High Court in the impugned judgment has inter alia overlooked the following points while determining the monthly maintenance amount payable by the respondent to the appellant Order dt.
However, soon after the marriage, relations between the appellant and the respondent became strained.
On 16 th July, 2003, she also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance of Rs.2 lakh per month from the respondent before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
That issue was finally resolved by this Court vide order dated 20 th October, 2014 by observing that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant was granted a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month as an interim maintenance, companymencing from November, 2014.
equal to Rs.21,28,368/ Rs.44 per Cad. ,
The arguments of the learned companynsel for the respondent and the judgments relied upon by the respondent are of numberhelp.
As relations between the appellant and the respondent became strained, the appellant filed a companyplaint before the Women Cell against the respondent and her inlaws.
On adding Rs.50,000/ per month agricultural income, Respondents monthly income can be presumed to be Rs.3 Lakh.
monthly salary companyes to Rs.1,77,364/. Even if minimum increase 5 per annum is added to salary of base year i.e. 2010, Respondents monthly salary would be Rs.2,51,800/. In absence of disclosure, this is a reasonable presumption for increase in salary.
Be it numbered that during the pendency of the said application, interim maintenance amount was fixed, which issue travelled upto this Court by way of Criminal Appeal Nos.23472349/2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 28th October, 2014 on the finding that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant was granted a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month as interim maintenance companymencing from November 1, 2014.
Against this decision, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court being Revision Petition Criminal No.204 of 2015, which has been partly allowed on the following terms Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 is setaside to the extent of number granting the maintenance in favour of the petitioner wife from 09.12.2010 onwards.
The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
As a result, the sole question to be decided in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of monthly maintenance amount payable by the respondent to the appellant.
The High Court instead directed the respondent husband to pay the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.9,000/ per month from 9th December, 2010 onwards to the appellant wife.
28.10.2014 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal number234749 of 2014 filed by Appellant against reduction numberpayment of interim maintenance, whereby this Court granted Rs.20,000/ interim maintenance, cannot be reduced as there has been numberchange in circumstances of parties since then.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/ per month from 09.12.2010 onwards.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May 31, 2018 in Revision Petition Criminal No.204 of 2015, whereby Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the High Court partly allowed the revision petition preferred by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2018.09.25 141921 IST Reason the appellant and was pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 28th January, 2015 in Petition No.363 of 2014, passed by the Judge, Family Courts, North Rohini, Delhi, to the limited extent of number granting maintenance amount to the appellant wife from 10th December, 2010 onwards.
Rather, he caused impediments in issuance of the Tourist Visa to the appellant, by giving an application in writing in that behalf to the Canadian Immigration Department.
No orders as to companyts.
The respondent, being a permanent resident of Canada, had assured the appellant that he would take her with him to Canada on 28 th March, 2002 on a Tourist Visa.
The respondent has number filed any independent petition to assail the judgment of the High Court rather, it is the appellant who has questioned the companyrectness of the quantum of maintenance amount as determined by the Family Court and the High Court, by filing the present appeal.
During the pendency of the maintenance application filed by the appellant on 16 th July, 2003, the respondents father filed a civil suit which, according to the appellant, was intended to prevent attachment of the family property of the respondent from execution of the order in her favour passed in the maintenance proceedings.
Further, despite the injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 28th October, 2004, which was operating against the respondent, he approached the companyrts in Canada and obtained an exparte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the maintenance amount and also adopted delaying tactics in the progress of the subject maintenance proceedings.
Furthermore, the Magistrate granted interim maintenance of Rs.25, 000/ per month from the date of filing of the maintenance petition on the prima facie finding that the respondents monthly salary, earned in Canada, was over Rs.1 lakh in the year 2003.
The respondent, on the other hand, has supported the decision of the High Court but at the same time, by way of companynter affidavit filed to oppose this appeal, has urged that the impugned judgment suffers from flawed reasoning on the following companynts The High Court does number deal with the reasoning of appreciation of evidence.
