SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jyoti And Another vs Gagan Malhotra on 17 December, 2019

109.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR(F)-985-2019 (OM)
Date of decision: 17.12.2019

JYOTI AND ANOTHER … Petitioners

versus

GAGAN MALHOTRA …. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
—-

Present: Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
—-

HARI PAL VERMA, J.

CRM-37164-2019

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation

Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for condonation of delay of 15 days in

filing the present revision petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

the delay of 15 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRM-39135-2019

Prayer in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to

place on record salary statement of petitioner No.1 as Annexure P-4.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

the document-Annexure P-4 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

1 of 6
22-12-2019 14:21:46 :::
CRR(F)-985-2019 (OM) -2-

CRR(F)-985-2019

Petitioners i.e. wife and minor son, have filed the present

revision petition against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, seeking modification/enhancement

of maintenance.

Briefly stated, the petitioners had filed a petition under Section

125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the respondent-husband. The

marriage between petitioner No.1-Jyoti and respondent-Gagan Malhotra was

solemnized on 05.12.2014 and out of this wedlock, a son was born to them,

who is arrayed as petitioner No.2-Kanha. Though huge amount was spent by

the parents of petitioner No.1 in her marriage, but the respondent and his

family members were not satisfied. They taunted and harassed petitioner

No.1 for bringing insufficient dowry. She was also taunted for her small

height and black complexion. On 17.01.2016, respondent and his family

members gave beatings to petitioner No.1 and turned her out of matrimonial

home. On 18.01.2016, her father came to her matrimonial home and after

persuasions, he left her there. On the chaula rasam of newly born child on

21.01.2016, respondent and his family members raised a demand of Rs.10

lakhs so that respondent can start his business and also demanded gold. The

father and other family members of petitioner No.1 asked for time, so as to

fulfill their demands, but the respondent and his family members quarreled

with them and turned petitioner No.1 out from the matrimonial home.

Efforts for reconciliation were made, but the respondent’s family refused to

keep and maintain the petitioners. In this respect, petitioner No.1 gave a

2 of 6
22-12-2019 14:21:46 :::
CRR(F)-985-2019 (OM) -3-

complaint to the police and accordingly, an FIR No.81 dated 29.12.2016,

under Sections 406, Section498A, Section506/Section34 of IPC, Police Station Women, Rohtak

was registered against the respondent and his family members. Petitioner

No.1 has no source of income, whereas respondent is working in a factory at

Delhi as Accountant and getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. He is also

owning movable and immovable properties. Therefore, she claimed for an

amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.33,000/- as

litigation expenses.

Respondent denied the allegations and stated that no dowry was

given at the time of marriage. No cash amount or car was demanded.

However, learned Family Court, while recording the finding

that as the petitioner No.1 is earning handsomely being computer faculty in

Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Rohtak, therefore, she is not

entitled for maintenance, but petitioner No.2, who is the son of the parties, is

staying away from the respondent due to matrimonial dispute, was held

entitled for maintenance. While considering the income of the respondent as

Rs.10,000/- per month, the learned Family Court awarded Rs.4,000/- per

month as maintenance to petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the

petition.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed

the present revision petition seeking modification/enhancement of the

maintenance.

The petitioners have placed on record the salary certificate

(Annexure P-4) of petitioner No.1 to contend that it is only in the months of

3 of 6
22-12-2019 14:21:46 :::
CRR(F)-985-2019 (OM) -4-

April and May, 2019, the petitioner has drawn Rs.15,000/- per month.

Otherwise, her income has been Rs.10,000/- or less than Rs.10,000/- per

month. In this manner, the impugned order requires modification and the

maintenance awarded needs to the enhanced.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners.

The reasoning given by the learned Family Court denying

maintenance to petitioner No.1 and allowing maintenance to petitioner No.2,

reads as under:-

“It may be pointed out here that it is an admitted fact
between the parties that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was
solemnized with respondent on 5.12.2014 and out of the said
wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born. However, there is specific
plea on the part of respondent that petitioner No.1 (wrongly
mentioned as petitioner No.2) is working and is earning. A
document Mark P/S is existing on the file which is part of
consolidated report regarding joining of computer teacher
pertaining to month of March, 2017. The said document shows
that petitioner No.1 joined as a computer faculty in Govt. Girls
Sr. Sec. School, Rohtak Block, on 6th March, 2017. During the
course of arguments, another document has been produced on
the file showing attendance of petitioner No.1 in the said school
on 2.8.2018. From these documents, it is clear that petitioner
No.1 is working. But she intentionally withheld this
information. Petitioner No.1 is earning handsomely being
computer faculty in Govt. Girls Senior Sr. School, Rohtak.

Therefore, she does not deserve any maintenance from the
respondent. In view of this situation, there is no need of
discussing other evidence regarding the main dispute between
the parties. The maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is only
given when the petitioner is not having any source of income,

4 of 6
22-12-2019 14:21:46 :::
CRR(F)-985-2019 (OM) -5-

but petitioner No.1 as referred above is working and is earning
handsomely and thus, she is not entitled to claim maintenance
from the respondent. However, petitioner No.2, son of the
parties, is staying away from the respondent due to matrimonial
dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent. He being son
of respondent is entitled to claim maintenance from him.
Respondent, admittedly, is working in SAK Fabrics Okhla
Industrial Area, Delhi. He has admitted his salary as
Rs.10,000/- per month at page 3 of the reply. Since both the
parents of petitioner No.2 are working, both have equal
responsibility to maintain him. Petitioner No.1 is already taking
care of petitioner No.2. In such eventuality, respondent is
directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 from the
date of filing of this petition. The petition, accordingly stands
partly allowed. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. At the same

time, petitioner No.1-Jyoti is also working as a computer faculty in

Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Rohtak since March, 2017. In

the absence of any conclusive evidence so as to establish the income of the

respondent, the learned Family Court has assessed the income of the

respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly, awarded maintenance

@ Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.2.

The argument of counsel for the petitioners that it is only in

April and May, 2019, the salary of petitioner No.1 was Rs.15,000/- and

otherwise, till March, 2019, her earning was Rs.8,000/- per month, is of no

relevance, as the income of the respondent-husband has not been assessed

more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is

5 of 6
22-12-2019 14:21:46 :::
CRR(F)-985-2019 (OM) -6-

earning Rs.10,000/- per month with additional amount of maintenance

awarded to petitioner No.2 @ Rs.4,000/- per month, her income will come

around Rs.14,000/- per month.

No interference is thus made out.

Dismissed.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
17.12.2019
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

6 of 6
22-12-2019 14:21:46 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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