CRL.M.C. 2097/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2097/2010 and Crl.M.A. 8187-8188/2010 Decided on 02.07.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : HARI OM MAHESHWARI ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus MRS. USHA MAHESHWARI ..... Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in an appeal preferred by him against the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which, the interim application for maintenance filed by the respondent, wife of the petitioner, under Section 125 Cr.PC was disposed of by awarding maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application, till further orders. The learned ASJ disposed of the appeal of the petitioner by modifying the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing that the respondent would be entitled to maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month only instead of Rs.12,000/- per month. It was further directed that the said order would be effective from the date of the petition CRL.M.C. 2097/2010 Page 2 of 3 till the date of decision of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.PC. 2. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and is at the stage of recording the cross-examination of the respondent. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever from him as the parties have been living separately since the year 1989 and that she has other sources of income by way of private tuitions that she has been taking since the year 1996. A perusal of the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shows that the aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner was duly taken note of in para 15 and thereafter, turned down. Maintaining a bank account by the respondent cannot by itself establish that she is earning any income to maintain herself independently. Similarly, holding of a PAN card by the respondent is also not an indicator in that direction. The petitioner has not placed any material document on the record to establish that the respondent is earning any amount by taking tuitions and, therefore, she is dis-entitled from claiming maintenance from him. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore rejected. 4. The second grievance of the petitioner is that the court below failed to consider that he was entitled to claim adjustment of a sum of Rs.4 lacs, which was paid to the respondent in the pending proceedings, filed by her against one Shri Arun Kumar, under Section 138 of the Negotiation Instruments Act. This aspect of the matter was taken note of by both, the learned ASJ & the Metropolitan Magistrate, who observed that the same is a CRL.M.C. 2097/2010 Page 3 of 3 matter of evidence to be decided after the parties lead the evidence. The said argument was also considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who rightly noted that the claim of the petitioner that a lump sum payment of Rs.15 lacs was made by him to his wife, who in turn invested the same elsewhere, is a question that requires evidence, and since the main petition is pending, the said issue cannot be decided at the interim stage. 5. It is lastly argued by the petitioner that if the respondent had the capacity to engage over four counsels in the Supreme Court in SLP Civil No.9773/2009, preferred by him against the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the High Court in a pending revision petition, by which the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner was vacated, it shows her sound financial position. This can hardly be treated as a ground for arriving at a conclusion that the respondent has other sources of income, which disentitles her from claiming interim maintenance during the pendency of the main petition. 6. The Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order, which deserves interference. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits alongwith the pending applications. (HIMA KOHLI) JULY 02, 2010 JUDGE rkb