SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vikash vs Sunita on 13 July, 2018

CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 -1-


CRR (F) No. 324 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision : 13.7.2018




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-


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

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether reportable Yes / No

6 of 6
23-07-2018 07:48:35 :::

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