CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : 13.7.2018
…
Vikash
…………….Petitioner
vs.
Sunita
……………..Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
…
H. S. Madaan, J.
This revision petition has been filed by Vikash, feeling
aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2016 passed by District Judge,
Family Court, Gurgaon, allowing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
filed by Sunita wife of Vikash and granting maintenance @
Rs.18,000/- per month to Sunita from the date of filing of petition
observing that the payment already made by the respondent-husband
as maintenance pendente lite in connected divorce proceedings
between the parties, would be adjusted against the amount awarded.
The revisionist prays that the revision petition be accepted and the
1 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::
CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -2-
impugned order be set aside and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
be dismissed.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner Sunita
aged about 20 years had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for
maintenance against her husband Vikash on the averments that she
was married with Vikash on 12.3.2013 at village Kadarpur Gurgaon
and her family had spent approximately Rs.60 lacs on the marriage
giving an Ertiga car, jewellery and other valuables. However, her
husband and family members were not satisfied with that dowry
articles brought by the petitioner and they used to harass and
humiliate her for the said reason, demanding Rs.50 lacs and a
Fortuner car. The petitioner could not get those demands fulfilled.
Her husband declared that he wanted to divorce her. The petitioner
had informed her parents who convened the Panchayats and for some
time the matter was reconciled. The petitioner was taken back to the
matrimonial home in January 2014. However, on 26.1.2014, father-
in-law of the petitioner entered her room in a drunken condition and
tried to molest her. The petitioner raised an alarm. Then she was
beaten up by mother and sister of her husband and confined in a room
and thereafter thrown out of the matrimonial home on the next day. In
the petition, the petitioner has given details of maltreatment and
harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws. She had prayed
for grant of monthly maintenance allowance payable by her husband,
the respondent in the petition, as she is unable to maintain herself,
while her husband is possessed of sufficient means for her
maintenance but has neglected and refused to do so.
2 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::
CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -3-
The petition was resisted by the respondent-husband,
who in the written reply admitted the relationship of husband and
wife between the parties but refuted the allegations of her
maltreatment and harassment by him and his family members, rather
contending that the petitioner had misconducted herself, as such she
is not entitled to get any maintenance amount; that she was not in a
sound state of mind, however, this fact was concealed from the
respondent by the family members of the petitioner. The respondent
claimed for dismissal of the petition.
The parties were afforded opportunities to lead evidence.
During the course of evidence of the petitioner, she got her own
statement recorded and placed on file jamabandis Exhibits P-1 to P-
19.
In rebuttal respondent appeared as his own witness and
placed on file copy of order dated 3.3.2016 as Exhibit R-1, copy of
jamabandi for the year 2003-04 as Exhibit R-2, college fee receipt of
respondent as Exhibit R-3 and copy of his Identity Card as Exhibit R-
4. After hearing the arguments, the Court below allowed the petition.
Feeling dissatisfied with such judgment passed by the
District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, the respondent has filed the
instant revision petition, notice of which was given to the respondent
wife, who has put in appearance, through counsel
I have learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
counsel for the respondent, besides going through the record.
It is not disputed that Sunita is legally wedded wife of
Vikash, so is the fact that parties are residing separately. From the
3 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::
CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -4-
case set up by the petitioner-wife and evidence adduced by her, it
comes out that she is residing separately from her husband for
justifiable reasons, since while in matrimonial home she used to be
harassed and maltreated by her husband and members of his family,
asking her to bring more dowry articles. As per the case of the
petitioner-wife, she is not possessed of sufficient means for her
maintenance, as such she is unable to maintain herself.
The revisionist-husband is a young man, though
according to version of the revisionist he is only a student, not doing
any work and as per evidence produced by him in the form of identity
card Exhibit R-4, showing that he is doing a B.Tech. course and other
documents produced by him showing deposit of more than
Rs.60,000/- on various occasions as fee. The revisionist contends that
since he himself is not earning and is dependent upon his parents, he
is not in a position to pay any maintenance to his wife. But then as the
law on the subject is clear that an able bodied husband is liable to
maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, even though he
may be a professional beggar. In the instant case, the revisionist is an
educated young man. As admitted by him while appearing as his
witness in the Court below, he is paying Rs.15,000/- per month as
maintenance to his wife in a connected proceedings. The Court
below had observed that though the respondent may be pursuing
some academic course, but he is also contributing to the family funds
and if it was not so, then he would not have been married and that
too more than three years back. The very fact that he is depositing his
annual fee after discount in the range of more than Rs.60,000/-, goes
4 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::
CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -5-
to show that if he can afford such type of fee to pursue a professional
course, that too like B.Tech., he cannot be termed as a pauper. It has
further been noticed that in the Indian society, the families often
remain joint even after the marriage of a grown up son and though it
may not be reflected in the documents, each family member
contributes to the family income in some manner, especially the
young men. In light of that, the Court below has observed that the
respondent belongs to a family holding considerable property and he
is capable of paying maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month in the
connected proceedings, further he had admitted that Ertiga car was
gifted to him by the family of his wife and that is still in his custody,
as such the family capable of incurring expenses of a farm house and
gifting a luxury car to their son-in-law would not marry their daughter
to a man, who has no source of income. The court has made
observation that it had interacted with the petitioner on several
occasions and there was nothing about her which would indicate that
she was of unsound mind. A subsequent finding had been recorded
that keeping in view all the facts and circumstances his minimum
income could be assessed as Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner has to be
maintained upto the proportionate standard. Accordingly keeping in
view the facts and circumstances, the maintenance amount was
awarded. The Revisionist is feeling aggrieved by that order
unnecessarily. The impugned order is well reasoned one, based upon
proper appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law and
I do not find any reason to interfere with the same, while exercising
the revisional jurisdiction and the same is upheld.
5 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::
CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -6-
The revision petition is found to be without any merit
and the same stands dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan )
13.7.2018 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::
