TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Mahila Courts, South East, Saket, Delhi in an application titled as Gyatri Mohan v. Taron Mohan & Ors. for claiming interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to this revision petition are:- a) The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 15.12.2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. b) After marriage, the respondent/wife was inducted as a whole time Director in the company run by the petitioner/husband, namely, Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. c) The respondent/wife started living separately claiming that she was deserted by the petitioner on 20.01.2009 after which she filed an application under Section 23 of the Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking for a modification of the order dated 14.05.2011 claiming that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 for the reason that the respondent is now getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as salary from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 as directed by the Company Law Board. i) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 29.07.2013 in CC No. 426/3 rejected the application for modification on the ground that the quantum of maintenance to an estranged wife is decided keeping in mind the standard of life she was used to while living with her husband since marriage. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that in the present case what was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-, Rs. 37,25,650 and Rs. 31,97,912 for the year 2010, 2011, 2012 respectively. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also noted that after proceedings were initiated between the parties, the income of the petitioner started decreasing and probably it was an attempt made by petitioner to hide his real income. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate therefore rejected the argument of the petitioner that Rs. 2,00,000/- per month being given as salary to the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 would allow her to maintain the same lifestyle that she was earlier enjoying while living with her husband. 3. The order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 29.07.2013 was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 204157/2016. The learned Additional Sessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to pay the salary of the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 amounts to change in circumstance then the logical conclusion would be to modify the order of maintenance to hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month to the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011. 7. On the other hand Mr. Joel, learned counsel for the respondent would state that four courts have upheld the order awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The order dated 14.05.2011 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court by an order dated 04.11.2011. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has refused to modify the order which has also been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. 10. The order dated 14.05.2011 has been upheld in the Appellate Court. The application for modification had been rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order date....