SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 2683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anita Chaudhry
Criminal Revision No. 2625 of 2014 (O&M)
Monu Songra
v.
Pinki
{Decided on 29/09/2016}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate.

Maintenance--Court has to determine whether a qualified woman who can get a job can sit idle and insist on maintenance--Interim maintenance declined.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125--Maintenance--Interim maintenance declined--Suppression of facts--Wife mentioned in FIR that she is a physiotherapist but concealed in the petition u/s 125--When it has been specially mentioned it can be assumed that she was practicing physiotherapist and capable of earning--Trial Court yet to consider the case on merits--Court has to determine whether a qualified woman who can get a job can sit idle and insist on maintenance--Interim maintenance held to be rightly declined. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.: (Oral) - The petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.6.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa who allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife reversing the order of the Magistrate who had dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. The parties were married on 27.11.2010. The husband is a Constable in Rajasthan. There is no child from this marriage. The wife had claimed that she had conceived but it resulted in miscarriage on 1.3.2011. Allegations were made that there were demands of dowry and she was not treated well. She claimed that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in February 2013.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 3.10.2013 dismissed the application and the reasons are disclosed in para 8 of the order which reads as under:-

“After hearing ld. Counsel for the parties and having gone through record carefully I am of the considered opinion that the application is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted case of the parties that they married to each other. It is also admitted case of the parties that they got strained relations between them. It is also admitted fact that no child was born out this wedlock. It is also admitted fact that criminal case u/s 498-A IPC has been registered against the respondent at the instance of the complainant. It is also admitted case that the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was dismissed as withdrawn. No doubt there are counter allegations against each other and both the parties are trying to make the other party responsible for disturbing the matrimonial life. But in this application, only one this is to be examined as to whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself or whether he or she is having any sufficient means of income. The copy of FIR mentioned above clearly shows that the petitioner has categorically stated therein that she is physiotherapist doctor meaning thereby that she is well educated and respondent has categorically stated that she is earning 25,000/- per month. Even this amount may be exaggerated however it can be easily inferred that she might have been earning sufficient income maintain herself.”

4. Aggrieved by the judgment, a revision was preferred by the wife. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide its order dated 13.6.2014 was of the view that even if the wife had a professional degree it would not matter and she would have to gain sufficient experience to earn and there was no allegation that she was working as a doctor in an institute or had opened her own clinic. It allowed the revision and awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance.

5. The petitioner claims that the wife did not want to live with him and she had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights but later the petition was withdrawn as he had appeared and made a statement that he was willing to keep her at his place of posting but the wife refused to accompany him. It was pleaded that the wife had got an FIR registered against him. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had concealed that she was a Physiotherapist before her marriage and was working and she did not mention this fact in her petition and it was a case of concealment. It was pleaded that his basic salary was Rs. 8550/- per month and after deduction, the carry home salary was 15065/- and the Court below had allowed Rs. 10,000/- taking the major portion of his salary, when he had his old parents to look after.

6. I have heard submissions of both the sides.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 30.4.2016 to show that the trial had ended in acquittal. He has placed on record a copy of the FIR where the wife had described herself as a physiotherapist (doctor).

8. The submission on behalf of the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top