SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hardeep Singh vs Tehzeeb Kaur on 21 May, 2018

Crl. Misc. M-33687-2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. M-33687 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: May 21, 2018

Hardeep Singh
…Petitioner

Versus

Tehzeeb Kaur

…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.

********

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. Aggrieved against the order dated 25.07.2017, declining to

adjust the amount of ` 5 lacs deposited in compliance of the order passed by

the Apex Court towards maintenance of the child under Section 125

Cr.P.C., the instant petition has been filed.

2. Briefly, the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner

herein and Dilpreet Kaur on 22.09.2012, out of which marriage one child

namely Tehzeeb Kaur, respondent herein was born on 31.08.2013. On

account of demand of dowry, the wife was thrown out of the matrimonial

home, leading to registration of FIR No.49 dated 11.07.2014, registered at

Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar City, under Sections 406, 498-A of

1 of 6
23-05-2018 00:54:16 :::
Crl. Misc. M-33687-2017 -2-

Indian Penal Code. The petitioner herein applied for anticipatory bail,

which came to be rejected by the Sessions Court, which was challenged

before the High Court in CRM-M-38074 of 2014 and the same was

dismissed on 02.12.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Apex

Court by way of filing SLP (Crl.) No.63 of 2017, which was also dismissed

giving liberty to the petitioner to surrender and pray for regular bail, which

was to be decided on the same date. While dismissing SLP, it was observed

that

“We find no reason to entertain this special leave
petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.

However, the petitioner is granted liberty to
approach the Trial Court since according to the
petitioner, being a case of the year 2014, the
investigation has almost reached the final stage. It will
be open to the petitioner to surrender and pray for
regular bail, in which case the application by the
petitioner will be decided preferably on the same day.

If the petitioner pays to the complainant/wife
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) towards
maintenance for the child, within a period of four weeks
from today, the petitioner shall be granted protection
from arrest, till the application for regular bail is
considered by the Trial Court.

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”

In terms of the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Apex

Court, a sum of ` 5 lacs by way of cheque was paid to the complainant

therein. During the pendency of these proceedings under the FIR and for

2 of 6
23-05-2018 00:54:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-33687-2017 -3-

grant of anticipatory bail, minor daughter Tehzeeb Kaur had instituted a

case on 05.02.2015 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in

which interim maintenance was allowed by an order dated 27.01.2017. The

petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- per month to Tehzeeb

Kaur being daughter of the petitioner herein. Since the petitioner failed to

make that payment of interim maintenance, an execution petition was

preferred bearing case No.565 of 2017 claiming a sum of ` 1,80,500/-. In

the said execution proceedings, objections were filed by the petitioner

herein claiming that he had already deposited a sum of ` 5 lacs towards

maintenance of the child, in terms of the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by

the Apex Court and therefore, the said amount should be adjusted, which

objections were dismissed by the impugned order dated 25.07.2017. Being

aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner contends that he has already deposited a sum of ` 5 lacs for

maintenance of the child in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court and

therefore, the executing court has erred in not making the necessary

adjustment.

4. Per contra, Mr. Nakul Sharma, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent would contend that the petitioner herein is liable to

pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as has been assessed by the

court and the amount of maintenance paid in terms of the order dated

13.01.2017 passed by the Apex Court was only on account of granting the

relief of bail.

3 of 6
23-05-2018 00:54:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-33687-2017 -4-

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

assistance perused the pleadings.

6. The only question that arises for determination is whether the

petitioner herein is entitled to the adjustment of ` 5 lacs deposited in terms

of the order passed by the Apex Court, in the proceedings under Section 125

Cr.P.C. wherein he is to pay ` 1,80,000/-. The respondent herein is the

minor daughter of the petitioner, who instituted a petition under Section 125

Cr.P.C. on 05.02.2015 seeking maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Jalandhar. It is interesting to note that wife has not moved an

application since, she is financially secure. The petitioner herein was

seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail in FIR No.49 dated 11.07.2014,

registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar City, under Sections

406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and during the mediation process in the

High Court in Criminal Misc. M-38074 of 2014, the following order came

to be passed;

“Parties are present in person. The petitioner states that
he is very keen to rehabilitate the marriage. The
complainant on the other hand states that it would not
be possible for her to rehabilitate the marriage but she
would not be averse to a settlement whereby the
petitioner may make arrangements for the minor
daughter who is two years old. She has reiterated that
she does not want anything for herself and whatever
deposit the petitioner will make would be put in a fixed
deposit for the benefit of the minor daughter and only
interest would be used for her upbringing and
maintenance. The petitioner prays for a short

4 of 6
23-05-2018 00:54:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-33687-2017 -5-

adjournment to respond to this.

Adjourned to 22.12.2015.

Let parties to the marriage be present in Court on the
next date.”

However, the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking

anticipatory bail ultimately was dismissed and the matter was taken up

before the Apex Court, where the order was passed, as reflected above. The

petitioner, who had been declined the relief of anticipatory bail by the Apex

Court was granted limited protection from arrest till his application for

regular bail was considered by the trial court, if he deposited an amount of `

5 lacs towards maintenance for the child.

7. A minor child is entitled to seek maintenance from her/his

parents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under the Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act. Section 125 Cr.P.C. contains summary and quick remedy

for securing some reasonable sum by way of maintenance, in order to

protect the destitute wife/minor child/old age parents against starvation.

These provisions are intended to fulfill a social purpose. By providing a

simple speedy but limited relief, the legislation seeks to ensure that the

neglected wife and children are not left destitute and thereby driven to a life

of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their substance.

8. In the instant case, the objections were rightly dismissed since

the maintenance deposited in terms of the order of the Supreme Court was

not in order to discharge any statutory liability or perform a moral duty and

was only in self interest of securing regular bail. It is worthwhile to note

that the minor child was not a party to the lis in the FIR. It is also

5 of 6
23-05-2018 00:54:17 :::
Crl. Misc. M-33687-2017 -6-

worthwhile to note that the petitioner, who is aware that maintenance

proceedings had been initiated, did not at the relevant time before the

Supreme Court make a statement that maintenance would be deposited and

the same should be adjusted against the proceedings pending under Section

125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this court is of the view that the amount deposited in

terms of the order of the Apex Court, should not be adjusted towards the

maintenance as has been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the minor

daughter. The respondent is entitled under the said statute to claim

maintenance and there is no order of set off.

9. In view of the above, the petition in hand is hereby dismissed,

being devoid of any merits.

(JAISHREE THAKUR)
May 21, 2018 JUDGE
vijay saini

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
23-05-2018 00:54:17 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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