Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 2920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anita Chaudhry
CRR (F) No.69 of 2015 (O&M)
Dr. V.P. Sharma
v.
Manu Khanna
{Decided on 24/05/2018}
Dr. Poonam Khanna, mother of Manu Khanna in person.
Maintenance--Claim by Child--Mere fact that the child’s mother in the agreement between herself and her husband had undertaken the responsibility of maintaining the child would not preclude the child from claiming maintenance for himself against the father
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125--Maintenance--Claim by Child--Mentally Retarted Child--Right of Child to claim maintenance cannot be denied and it is responsibility of both parents where mother is also working. (Para 20)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125--Maintenance--Claim by Child--Claim of maintainenance subsequent to settlement of all claims by his parents--Mere fact that the child’s mother in the agreement between herself and her husband had undertaken the responsibility of maintaining the child would not preclude the child from claiming maintenance for himself against the father. (Para 22)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125--Maintenance--Claim by Child--Reduction of amount--Earning of mother--Income of the father if taken even at Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month in 2004, amount allowed (Rs.10,000/-) by the trial Court is on higher side--Trial Court made no attempt to analyze facts and awarded maintenance taking into consideration that father alone was to be provider--Court could not have ignored fact that mother was earning--Mother is working--She had not disclosed her income and what amount she is getting from properties she had received--She has chosen to completely keep silent on that--She is also under obligation to contribute as responsibility would be jointly on both parents--Therefore, interim maintenance modified from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,500/-. (Para 26)
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- These are two revisions assailing the order passed by the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., decided on 27.08.2012.
2. Assailing the orders, revisions were filed in the Delhi High Court, which under the orders of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 960-963/2014 were transferred to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on 05.12.2014. The execution petition which was pending before the Saket Court was also transferred to the Family Court at Chandigarh.
3. It would be necessary to give the facts as presented in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petition was filed by the minor through her mother, the natural guardian seeking maintenance for the mentally challenged child.
4. Poonam Khanna claimed that she was married to V.P. Sharma in 1981. Manu was the only child born to them. Though his chronological age was 23 years but his mental age was less than 7 years. It was claimed that monthly income of the husband was more than Rs.50,000/- as he was consulting doctor in various hospitals and nursing homes. The petitioner had given the names of three nursing homes. It was claimed that the husband owned a air conditioned car and he had engaged a driver and he was also owner of the roof of C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi and the value of the property was more than Rs.35 lacs and the purchaser could construct two floors. It was also pleaded that the respondent was an income tax payee and he owned 30 bighas of ancestral land.
5. The petitioner further claimed that a settlement was effected on 02.04.2003 and she had taken the responsibility for the child and the respondent was breaching the conditions repeatedly. It was pleaded that the medical expenditure of the child was Rs.1,500/- per month and she was entitled to maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month as she required maintenance for the child, salary of the escort and medical expenses.
6. The respondent-husband pleaded that the child was a slow learner/mentally challenged and he had an IQ of 55 to 60 and his mental age was 18 years and had passed his 10th examination from CBSC in 1997. He also gave his roll number. It was admitted that Manu was the only child but it was pleaded that after their divorce he had remarried and his father had retired and he was under a liability to maintain his wife and aged parents. It was denied that his monthly income was Rs.50,000/- per month. It was admitted that he was visiting nursing homes as a consultant and his monthly income from all sources was Rs.15,000-20,000/- and the net taxable income in the financial year 2004-2005 was Rs.1,09,924/-. He also enclosed its copy. It was admitted that he owned a Santro car but stated it was of 2000 model and not in use. It was denied that he had engaged a driver. It was pleaded that the property C-18 at Shivalik, New Delhi was purchased out of joint funds by Poonam and him and possession was with her and she was enjoying it from the date of settlement and he was living in a flat in an unauthorized colony. It was submitted that he had given up his share in the jointly purchased plot and a shop at Malviya Nagar in lieu of maintenance. He also gave his Permanent Account Number and admitted that he was an income tax payee for the last 10 years. It was denied that he owned any ancestral property. It was pleaded that the agricultural land was disposed of by his father. It was submitted that the petitioner had not kept any escort for the child and the child was going to school independently in a bus and he could go to the market to purchase articles and no escort was required. It was admitted that the child had epilepsy but it was denied that he was a patient of nephrotic syndrome. It was pleaded that a settlement had been arrived at, according to which petitioner no.2 (wife) had taken the responsibility of looking after the child. It was denied that he had ever interfered in the peaceful life of the petitioner or that he
