SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Krishan Dutt vs Coram on 14 September, 2018



      CrMMO No. 264 of 2018

                Decided on:   14.09.2018

Krishan Dutt …Petitioner



r to …Respondent

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 

For the petitioner:      Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed against impugned

order, dated 19th May, 2018, passed in Criminal Revision No.

12­Cr.R./10 of 2018, titled Krishan Dutt versus Sunita, by

learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sirmaur   District   at   Nahan,

whereby   revision   petition   filed   by   the   petitioner   has   been

partly allowed directing release of the petitioner from civil

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

imprisonment   subject   to   deposit   of   the   amount   as   per

undertaking given by him before the learned Sessions Judge


in the  said revision petition,  failing  which the  trial  Court

has been granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in

accordance with law.

2. It is apt to record herein that the petitioner had

preferred   aforesaid   revision   petition   against   order,   dated

28th  April,   2018,   passed   by   the   learned   Chief   Judicial

Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby, on expressing his

inability   to   make   payment   of   maintenance   allowance   in

Execution   Petition/Case   No.   182/4   of   2013   filed   for

recovering   the   maintenance   awarded   in   favour   of   the

respondent in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), the

trial   Court   had   ordered   to   commit   the   petitioner   to   civil

imprisonment   for   one   month   for   default   of   payment   of

maintenance allowance to the month of August, 2010.

3. It   appears   from   the   order   passed   by   the   trial

Court (Annexure P­1) as well as impugned order, dated 19th

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

May, 2018 (Annexure P­3) that the petitioner is not paying

maintenance   allowance   to   the   respondent   at   least   since



4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he

is   a   jobless   person   having   no   earning   and,   thus,   is   not

capable to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent in

compliance of the order passed by he trial Court and for his

inability to pay the maintenance allowance, he had offered

to   transfer   the   land   owned   by   him   in   favour   of   the

respondent   from   the   very   beginning   and   had   also   made

statement to that effect in the trial Court and despite that

the   petitioner   has   been   ordered   to   be   committed   to   civil

imprisonment   without   considering   the   entire   facts   and

circumstances as well as the aforesaid offer of the petitioner.

5. Statements, dated 8th March, 2017 and 23rd July,

2016 have been placed on record as Annexure P­2 (colly).  In

these   statements,   the   petitioner   has   nowhere   proposed   to

transfer the land in favour of the respondent, rather, he has

made the statement to the effect that he has no objection to

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

make   payment   of   maintenance   to   the   respondent   after

selling his property by the Court.  Petitioner has also placed


on   record   copy   of   warrant   of   attachment   of   movable

property, dated 1st  August, 2016, in the execution filed by

the respondent.

6. During   pendency   of   present   petition,   parties

were directed to remain present in person in the Court to

undertake   the   effort   for   reconciliation/amicable   settlement

between   the   parties.     During   that   exercise   also,   the

petitioner had offered transfer/sale of his land in favour of

the   respondent   or   for   making   payment   of   maintenance

amount.   However, it was transpired that the land owned

and   possessed   by   the   petitioner   is   not   free   from

encumbrances  as  the  petitioner  has already  obtained loan

from   bank/financial   institution   against   the   said   land.

Therefore, plea of the petitioner that he is ready and willing

to   transfer   the   land   to   the   respondent   or   to   sale   out   his

property for making the payment of maintenance allowance

to respondent is a farce.

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

7. On the previous date, adjournment  was sought

on the ground that the petitioner is intending to settle the


matter in the divorce petition filed by the respondent in the

Court   of   learned   District   Judge,   Sirmaur   at   Nahan,

however,   it   is   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the

respondent   that   no   such   effort   has   been   made   in   the

proceedings of divorce petition, rather, the petitioner, who is

respondent therein, has sought more than one month’s time

to file reply to the said petition whereupon the trial Court

has fixed the next date of hearing as 31st October, 2018.

8. It is also pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that

the petitioner is ready to keep the respondent with him, but,

she   has   left   the   company   of   the   petitioner   without   any

satisfactory reason and,  thus,  as  per provisions of Section

125 (4) CrPC, she is not entitled for maintenance.

9. This plea of the petitioner is not sustainable as

there   is   nothing   on   record   to   establish   the   contention   so

raised   by   the   petitioner   dis­entitling   the   respondent   from

receiving maintenance under Section 125 (4) CrPC, rather,

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

it   is   apparent   from   the   record   that   the   order   awarding

maintenance in favour of the respondent under Section 125


CrPC   was   passed   in   the   year   2010   and   since   then,   no

maintenance amount has been paid by the petitioner.

10. From   the   warrant   of   attachment   placed   on

record, it is also evident that the said warrant of attachment

was   issued   in   2016   in   Case   No.   5/1   of   2010.     Meaning

thereby, the execution petition for recovery of maintenance

is pending since 2010, but, the petitioner is not making any

payment in respect thereof.

11. Learned   Sessions   Judge   had   directed   the

petitioner to appear before the trial Court on 26th May, 2018

with further liberty to the trial Court to proceed against the

petitioner,   in   accordance   with   law,   in   case   of   failure   in

deposit of the amount, as undertaken by him.

12. In   the   aforesaid   background,   legality   of   the

impugned   order   is   to   be   assessed.     Vide   order,   dated   24 th

April, 2018,  the  trial  Court  had  ordered one month’s  civil

imprisonment to the petitioner and it appears, from perusal

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

of the impugned order, that petitioner was lodged in the jail

and   thereafter,   he   had   preferred   the   revision   petition


wherein he had undertaken to deposit the balance amount

in Execution Petition No. 182/4 of 2013, titled Sunita Devi

versus Krishan Dutt and on the basis of his undertaking, he

was ordered to be released.


Considering   entire   facts   and   circumstances   as

well   as   submissions   of   parties,   I   find   no   illegality,

irregularity   or   perversity   in   the   impugned   order   as   no

ground for interference in impugned order is made out.

14. At   this   stage,   it   is   contended   on   behalf   of   the

respondent that by filing the present petition and calling the

respondent   to  Shimla  after  expressing  desire  to settle the

dispute, the petitioner has caused unnecessary expenditure

to   be   incurred   by   the   respondent   and   also   causing

harassment   to   her   and,   thus,   she   has   prayed   for   levying

heaving costs upon the petitioner payable to the respondent

in addition to the cost of litigation.

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::HCHP

15. Respondent has been provided legal aid, in the

present   case,   therefore,   I   do   not   find   any   reason   to   order


payment of litigation charges, however, respondent had to

travel   to   Shimla   to   attend   this   Court   for   expression   of

willingness on the part of the petitioner to settle the dispute

and   for   that   purpose,   she   has   incurred   the   expenses   for

which the petitioner is liable to pay  ₹ 1,000/­ to compensate

her   and   the   said   amount   shall   be   paid   by   the   petitioner

before the trial Court on 3rd October, 2018.

16. In view  of  above  discussion,  present petition is

dismissed in aforesaid terms.  The interim order also stands

vacated and parties are directed to appear before the trial

Court,   i.e.   learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Sirmaur   at

Nahan, on 3rd October, 2018,  who shall proceed further in

accordance with law.

       (Vivek Singh Thakur)
September 14, 2018
                         ( rajni )

19/09/2018 22:58:12 :::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