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
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
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
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.
reliefs which can be granted while disposing of the application filed under
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
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.
February 05, 2018
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
12-02-2018 00:19:35 :::