SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anil Kumar vs Shashi Bala And Others on 2 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 30 of 2011
Decided on: May 2, 2017
_

.
Anil Kumar ………Petitioner

Versus
Shashi Bala and others …Respondents
_

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.
_
For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, for
respondent No.1

Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate, for
r respondents No.2 and 3.

_
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Delinked from FAO(HMA) No. 205 of 2011.

2. Instant petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is directed

against judgment dated 4.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2009,

reversing judgment dated 24.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur in Domestic Violence Complaint No. 2-1

of 2009, whereby application under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, ‘Act’), having

been filed by respondent No.1-complainant (‘complainant’, hereafter),

came to be dismissed.

3. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that

the complainant preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-2-

alleging therein that she was married to appellant-Anil Kumar as per

Hindu rites and customary ceremonies on 17.6.2003 and two children

were born out of said wedlock. Complainant further averred that she

.

was turned out by her in-laws. Complainant further claimed that after

being ousted from the house, she remained in her parents’ house for

eight months and came back on 22.11.2008, when her father-in-law

did not allow her to enter the house. After two days, she went back to

her parents’ house. On 14.12.2008, when she again came back, she

was taken out of the room and was not allowed to meet her children.

Complainant further alleged that false allegations have been leveled

against her. She further complained that on 23.12.2008, all of her

family members had left the house by locking it and since then she had

been residing in her courtyard and bathroom respectively. Her

husband had also gone away with other family members. In the

aforesaid background, Complainant prayed for providing protection

under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act.

4. Petitioner alongwith proforma respondents No.2 and 3, by

way of reply, refuted the aforesaid claim of the complainant and stated

that false and frivolous application has been moved by the

complainant to put undue pressure as well as to cause harassment to

them. However, petitioner admitted the complainant to be his legally

wedded wife but specifically stated that she developed illicit relations,

as a result of which, divorce petition has been filed. As per petitioner,

despite repeated requests, complainant failed to mend her ways and,

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-3-

on 23.6.2008, was caught red-handed. Petitioner specifically denied

allegations of maltreatment and claimed that all the basic necessities

of life were provided to the complainant when she remained with him.

.

With the aforesaid submissions, petitioner claimed that the

complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the application.

5. Complainant, by way of rejoinder, reasserted her claim as

put forth in the complaint and specifically denied the allegations as

contained in the reply having been filed by the respondents.

6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings adduced on

record by the respective parties, framed following questions, for

determination:

“1. Whether the applicant is entitled for protection and
relief as claimed in the application? If so, to what extent?

2. Final Order.”

7. However, the fact remains that learned trial Court, on the

basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to

the conclusion that there is no merit in the application having been

filed by the complainant and accordingly, rejected the same.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the rejection of

aforesaid application, complainant preferred an appeal under Section

29 of the Act before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,

Hamirpur, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 30 of

2009. Learned appellate court below, while partly accepting the appeal

filed by the complainant, quashed and set aside order dated 24.3.2009

and held complainant entitled to maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000/-

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-4-

per month, from the date of order. At this stage, it may be noticed that

while passing aforesaid judgment, learned appellate court specifically

concluded that no evidence has been led on record by the complainant

.

to prove serious allegations as leveled against the respondents in the

complainant. The court below further concluded that no evidence has

been brought on record to demonstrate violence, if any, by the

respondents and accordingly, held her not entitled to protection,

residence and custody order in her favour. Learned appellate court

below, while partly allowing appeal, held that since complainant has to

live and maintain herself and she has no independent source of

income, she is entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act.

9. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, while referring to the impugned judgment passed by court

below, vehemently argued that same is not sustainable in the eyes of

law, as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. While

inviting attention of this Court to impugned order passed by court

below, Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that once learned Court below

had come to the conclusion that no evidence worth the name has been

led on record by the complainant, to prove violence, if any, against her

by the petitioner and his family members, there was no occasion,

whatsoever, to provide maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. Mr.

Sharma, also invited attention of this Court to the evidence led on

record by the complainant in support of her complaint filed before

learned trial Court, to demonstrate that there is no illegality or

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-5-

infirmity in the order of learned trial Court, whereby it has rightly come

to the conclusion that complainant has not been able to prove

contents of application, so as to make herself entitled to reliefs under

.

Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act. Mr. Sharma, further contended

that earlier, complainant had filed divorce petition against petitioner

leveling serious allegations of sexual harassment against his father but

same was later on withdrawn. Mr. Sharma also invited attention of this

Court to the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by matrimonial

court in the petition having been filed by the petitioner, wherein

allegations with regard to illicit relations of complainant with one Jeet

Ram, stood duly proved. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sharma,

prayed that impugned order passed by learned appellate Court below

may be set aside and that of learned trial Court be restored.

10. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel representing the

complainant, supported the impugned judgment passed by learned

appellate Court below. Mr. Vashishta while refuting aforesaid

contentions having been made by the learned counsel representing the

petitioner, stated that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment

passed by learned Court below, wherein he has specifically come to the

conclusion that since complainant has to live and maintain herself,

and she is having no independent source of income, she is entitled for

monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act.

11. He also contended that a very meager sum of Rs.1,000/-

per month has been awarded by the learned Court below as such, there

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-6-

is no scope of interference, specifically in view of the fact that it stands

duly proved on record that respondent-complainant is legally wedded

wife of petitioner and it is/was his bounden duty to maintain her

.

during subsistence of their marriage. Mr. Vashishta also made this

Court to travel through evidence led on record by the complainant

before learned trial Court, to suggest that learned trial Court miserably

failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, as a result of

which, erroneous findings have come on record, which were later on

rectified in accordance with law, by the learned appellate Court below,

in the appeal having been filed by the complainant. In the aforesaid

background, Mr. Vashishta, prayed for dismissal of petition.

12. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties

and also gone through the record very carefully.

13. Before adverting to the genuineness and correctness of the

impugned order passed by appellate court below as well as

submissions of learned counsel representing the parties, it may be

noticed that marriage of petitioner with complainant stands dissolved

on the ground of cruelty, as is evident from decree passed by learned

District Judge in HMA No. 18 of 2008, on 3.3.2011, whereby

matrimonial court, while accepting petition filed by the petitioner has

dissolved marriage on the ground of cruelty. It may also be stated at

this stage that aforesaid judgment having been passed by matrimonial

court was laid challenge before this Court by way of FAO No. 205 of

2011, which came to be decided by this Court on 2.5.2017. This

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-7-

Court, vide aforesaid judgment, while dismissing appeal having been

preferred by the complainant, has upheld the decree of dissolution of

marriage passed by matrimonial court.

.

14. This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the perversity, if

any, in the impugned judgment passed by appellate court, carefully

perused pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the

respective parties, perusal whereof certainly compels this Court to

agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel representing

petitioner that learned appellate Court below has failed to appreciate

evidence adduced on record by respective parties in its right

perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on

record. Bare perusal of impugned judgment passed by learned

appellate Court below itself suggests that even appellate court was not

convinced of evidence led on record, which could make complainant

entitled for protection as claimed by way of application under Section

12 of the Act. Learned appellate Court below, in para 16 of the

impugned judgment has categorically stated that from the record, it

appears that serious allegations had been leveled against complainant

and no evidence had been brought for providing maintenance and as

such she was not held entitled to protection, residence and custody

order in her favour. It has also come in the judgment passed by learned

Court below that no violence, if any, on the part of petitioner was

proved. While granting compensation of Rs.1,000/- per month, in

favour of the complainant, learned appellate Court below took into

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-8-

consideration status of complainant, who admittedly had to live and

maintain herself and she had no independent source of income. But, if

evidence led on record by the complainant before learned trial Court, to

.

prove contents of her application under Section 12 of the Act, is seen

and perused carefully, it nowhere suggests that maltreatment and

violence as defined under the Act was ever meted to the complainant.

There is no specific allegation, if any, of beatings given by husband or

family members, rather there is bald statement of complainant (AW-1)

that she was maltreated but no specific instance as such has been

reported with regard to violence, if any, done on her by the

respondents. Father of the complainant (AW-3) namely Bihari Lal has

also not stated anywhere anything specific with regard to violence, if

any, committed by petitioner or his family members. Apart from above,

no independent witness, if any, from locality was associated to prove

allegations of maltreatment and violence in terms of provisions

contained in the Act. As far as allegations with regard to throwing

complainant from the house are concerned, there is evidence led on

record by the petitioner, that complainant left the house at her own,

after being caught red handed with one Jeet Ram, with whom, she had

illicit relations (as stood proved in the divorce petition). All the

witnesses of the respondent have stated that complainant left the

house to answer call of nature and never turned up thereafter.

15. This Court, after having bestowed its thoughtful

consideration to the pleadings available on record, has no hesitation to

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP
-9-

conclude that appellate court below, while granting maintenance of

Rs.1,000/- to the complainant got swayed by emotions and completely

ignored overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the

.

fact that complainant herself had left the house. Since there was no

evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, learned appellate

Court below ought not have granted any amount on account of

maintenance. Moreover, as has been noticed above, marriage between

the parties has been dissolved vide judgment dated 3.3.2011, which

has been further upheld by his Court and as such, this Court sees no

force, much less substantial, in the complaint of the complainant,

which was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

16. Consequently, in view of above, judgment dated 4.12.2010

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in

Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2009 is set aside and judgment dated

24.3.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III,

Hamirpur in Domestic Violence Complaint No. 2-1 of 2009 is upheld.

However, keeping in view the fact that instant petition under Section

12 of the Act remained pending adjudication till passing of decree of

dissolution of marriage i.e. wherein allegations with regard to illicit

relationship of complainant stood proved, this court deems it fit to

grant/award of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, to be paid by the

petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today, as maintenance

under Section 12 of the Act.

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP

– 10 –

17. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending

applications, if any are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are

also vacated.

.

(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge

May 2, 2017
(Vikrant)

r to

05/05/2017 23:57:46 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation