SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajwant Kaur vs Narinder Singh on 5 February, 2018

Crl. Misc. No. M-43582 of 2016 -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-43582 of 2016
Date of Decision: 05.2.2018

Rajwant Kaur ……Petitioner

Versus

Narinder Singh …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.

****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J

This petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 5.5.2015

(Annexure P-8) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur and

the order dated 4.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by Additional Sessions

Judge, Gurdaspur.

Few facts would be necessary. The parties were married in

1998 and they have a son who was born in June 2000. It is claimed that the

son fell ill when he was eight months old and is handicapped. Differences

arose between the couple. Efforts for compromise were made but failed. A

petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the

husband. It was claimed that the said petition has been filed to harass the

petitioner and her child as they were summoned to attend the Court at Tarn

Taran and it was only a cover up because a complaint had been given

against him to the police. The petitioner is a government teacher. It is

claimed that she was unable to bear the medical expenses and filed an

1 of 4
12-02-2018 00:19:34 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-43582 of 2016 -2-

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance for the child. The

petitioner also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was

claimed that the husband was earning Rs. 3.00 lacs per annum and was

running a school. Additionally he had agricultural income. The petitioner

has pleaded that she has filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act

and also moved an application for maintenance and had given the disability

certificate to show that the child was suffering from permanent disability. It

was pleaded that in the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act maintenance was awarded to the child besides litigation

expenses. Aggrieved by that order a revision was filed by the husband. The

petitioner also filed a revision seeking modification of the order and sought

enhancement. It was pleaded that in the revision both the parties were

present and a compromise was effected as the husband had agreed to take

back the wife and they were to live together and the husband made a

statement that he would keep the wife and child with him. The petitioner

was also ready and willing to join the husband in the matrimonial home and

on the basis of those statements made by the parties both the revision

petitions were disposed of as infructuous and it was also ordered that both

the petitions i.e. one filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and

the other filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be deemed to be as

dismissed as infructuous.

The petitioner claims that she lived with her husband only for a

few days and then joined her duty on 12.2.2009. When she went back in the

evening, she was not allowed to enter the house and the main gate was

closed and the respondent and his parents locked the house and went away.

2 of 4
12-02-2018 00:19:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-43582 of 2016 -3-

The police was called and a compromise was effected where the father-in-

law agreed to construct a separate portion for the couple within a month i.e.

before 13.3.2009 and during this period integrum it was agreed that the

petitioner would go back to stay with her parents for a month. The

petitioner then received the summons in a suit filed by her mother-in-law

wherein she sought permanent injunction against her and her brother and it

was disclosed that the father-in-law had executed a sale deed with respect to

his 1/3rd share in favour of his wife i.e. Balbir Kaur (her mother-in-law). It

is pleaded that the petitioner and her minor son were thrown out of the

matrimonial home and in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner, a sale

deed was executed within 1½ month of the incident. It was pleaded that in

view of this background, the petitioner had filed an application for recall of

the order but the lower Court held that since the order had been passed by

the High Court therefore, the application for recall could not be entertained

by it. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking review which was

dismissed. The petitioner also approached the Supreme Court but her

petition was dismissed. It was pleaded that the petitioner had become a

victim of fraud practiced by the respondent. The petitioner filed an

application seeking interim maintenance in the complaint filed under the

Domestic Violence Act but the trial Court has dismissed the application

solely on the ground that the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

had been dismissed.

I have heard both the sides.

The challenge in this petition is to the order passed on the

application filed in the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act.

Though, the complaint was filed in 2007 but the application for

3 of 4
12-02-2018 00:19:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-43582 of 2016 -4-

maintenance was moved in 2014. The trial Court while disposing the

application referred to the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and

the subsequent orders and events and the compromise, the recall

applications and the case preferred in the Supreme Court and dismissed it. It

failed to decide the application on merits.

Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act lists the monetary

reliefs which can be granted while disposing of the application filed under

Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. The provisions of Section 20(1)(d)

are clear. The trial Court should have passed the order on merits considering

the merits of the application.

We are told that the evidence is complete and the case is now

fixed for final arguments. It is for the trial Court to see whether any

monetary relief is to be granted and for which period. We are also told that

the case had been adjourned 2-3 times and arguments have only to be led. It

is expected that the arguments shall be led by both the sides on the next date

of hearing.

Impugned orders dated 5.5.2015 (Annexure P-8) and the order

dated 4.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) are set aside. The matter is remanded back

to the trial Court.

The petition is allowed.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE
February 05, 2018
Gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No

4 of 4
12-02-2018 00:19:35 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh