Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Vipul Lakhanpal & Anr.—Petitioners
versus
Smt. Pooja Sharma & Anr.—Respondents
Cr.MMO No.26 of 2015 and Cr. Revision No.369 of 2014
Decided on 1.6.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner in Cr.MMO No.26 of 2015 and For the Respondent in Cr.Revision No.369 of 2014:Mr. G.D.Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent in Cr.MMO No.26 of 2015 and For the Petitioner in Cr. Revision No.369 of 2014:Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Woman who is constrained to leave matrimonial home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace.
Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 12—Domestic violence—Right to maintenance—Factum of marriage has not been denied by husband—It is not only his moral obligation but legal duty to maintain his wife by providing food, clothing and shelter— Woman who is constrained to leave matrimonial home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance—As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband—She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar—Once husband is an able-bodied young man capable of earning sufficient money, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation of maintaining his wife—After having rendered wife a total destitute, husband cannot be heard to complain that because now she is earning, she is not entitled to any maintenance—Award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and award of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- is just and proper—Petitions dismissed. (Paras 16, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27 and 28)
Result : Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—Since both the petitions arise out of the same judgment, they are being taken up together for disposal. The parties shall hereinafter referred to as wife and husband.
2. The wife filed a petition through Protection Officer, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act) against her husband. It transpires that wife had made a written complaint before the Protection Officer, in which it had been averred that her marriage was solemnized with the husband on 30.10.2009 in accordance with the Hindu Rites. After the marriage, she went to the house of husband at Longwood, Shimla where on the first night the husband threatened her and told her that had he been in possession of a knife he could have killed her and in case she opened her mouth her entire family will be killed by him.
3. The wife thereafter was taken to the native village at Hamirpur by her husband and his family members for POOJA purpose, where the husband and his family members also maltreated her. The husband also told the wife that in fact he wanted to marry with the niece of Karuna Vaid and he does not like her.
4. The husband could not consummate the marriage with the wife as he is not physically fit. The wife also joined the company of her husband at Mumbai where he could also not consummate the marriage with her, rather he had beaten her and her mother at Mumbai. Two meetings were called by the relatives of the wife, where father of the husband admitted that his son is not physically fit.
5. Thereafter, the husband attacked his wife in her parental house and in this manner, made her life hell by making telephonic calls and SMS and, therefore, action be taken against him. The Protection Officer filed incident report. The complaint was forwarded by him through incident report in the Court.
6. The respondents contested the petition by filing their separate replies. In his reply the husband took preliminary objection regarding maintainability. On merits, he denied that he or his family members ever maltreated or had beaten the wife. The wife remained with him and his family members even at his native place in District Hamirpur and also stayed with him at Mumbai. The wife joined his company at Mumbai when she was brought by his father to Mumbai. The meeting was convened by the relatives of the husband but the wife refused to join the company of her husband without sufficient cause. In fact, in the meeting father and relatives of the wife asked the father of husband to pay Rs.15-20 lacs and get divorce from the wife and the husband and his family members never maltreated the petitioner. The wife also lodged FIR against the respondents under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC at Solan just to harass the respondents. The petition filed by the wife is false and frivolous, same be dismissed with costs.
7. The other respondents also filed the reply in which they denied the allegations as had been made by the wife.
8. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence and hearing the parties vide his order dated 1.9.2012 partly allowed the petition of the wife against the respondent-husband, whereby he was prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence and further ordered to pay a maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
9. The husband assailed this order before the learned appellate authority, who affirmed and upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
10. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned courts below, the husband has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set-aside the aforesaid orders.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
12. It has been alleged that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the wife who is TGT in Maths and was drawing a handsome salary of Rs.9,0
