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 :::
