Sonu Saluja vs. Smt. Harpreet Kaur Saluja

Facts

The applicant, Sonu Saluja, filed a criminal revision challenging an order dated May 8, 2019, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur. The Family Court had partly allowed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents (wife and son), directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 as maintenance. The respondents' application alleged harassment for dowry and financial neglect by the applicant, who was stated to be the owner of a wholesale fancy store. The applicant contested this, claiming he earned only Rs. 4,500/- per month as a salesman, that the wife was an advocate earning more, and that she had abandoned him without cause.

Held

The High Court held that the Family Court had not committed any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in its order. The Court noted that the Family Court, after considering the evidence, concluded that the applicant's source of income was from business/trade and his monthly income appeared to be more than approximately Rs. 15,000/-, establishing him as a person of sufficient means. The Family Court found that the applicant failed to present credible evidence proving the wife's consistent engagement in the legal profession and regular income. The Court also observed that the wife denied the suggestion of filing a Section 498A IPC complaint, which could have been a reason for living separately. Therefore, the respondents were found entitled to maintenance. The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Family Court erred in determining the applicant's income and ordering maintenance payments, considering the applicant's claim of low earnings and the respondent's alleged ability to maintain herself? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant argued that the Family Court failed to consider the affidavit of Narendra Saluja, which stated the applicant earned approximately Rs. 4,500/- per month as a salesman in Narendra Saluja's shop, a firm with a GST number. - The applicant contended that the respondent (wife) is an advocate practicing since 2011 and is capable of self-maintenance, having denied allegations of dowry harassment and refused counseling. - The applicant claimed the respondent abandoned him without reasonable cause, disentitling her to maintenance. Revenue/State's Arguments: - No arguments were recorded for the revenue or state in this matter.