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

2020 Supreme(P&H) 306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Raj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Ritu - Respondent
CRR-F-187-2016 (O&M) and CRM-M-14002-2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Vivek Khandwal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Party-in-Person and Amaninder Preet, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the Respondent

The need for evidence of the husband's earnings is crucial in determining maintenance claims under different acts.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Dispute arising from marriage - Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - 2020 Crl. L.R. (SC) 103, Kalyan Dey Chowdhary v. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy 2017 (2) RCR (Civil) 1033

Fact of the Case:

Dispute arose between the parties after a marriage, leading to the wife filing for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The courts allowed maintenance at different rates in each proceeding.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the petitioner's earnings and the respondent's earning capacity. It also considered the Supreme Court's ruling that relief can be claimed under both Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, but emphasized the need for evidence of the husband's earnings.

Issues: Dispute over maintenance amount, lack of evidence on earnings, and the applicability of maintenance claims under different acts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the absence of evidence on the petitioner's income and applied the principle that relief can be claimed under both acts, but emphasized the need for evidence of the husband's earnings.

Final Decision: The court decided that the respondent would be entitled to the same maintenance as allowed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., Rs. 5000/- per month only.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The petitioner herein seeks to challenge two orders by way of filing the present revisions as the maintenance has been allowed @ Rs. 5000/- per month by an impugned order dated 20.01.2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Rohtak and impugned order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak affirming order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the JMIC, Rohtak whereby maintenance @ Rs. 7000/- per month has been allowed in proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Since the facts are common, this Court proposes to dispose of these two petitions by this common order.

3. In brief, the facts as stated are that a marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 20th January 2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Rohtak and out of the said marriage no child was born. Dispute arose between the parties and it was alleged that the respondent/complainant-wife was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 20th April 2010 i.e. within a period of 3 months of the marriage on account of not bringing adequate dowry. Consequent to that, she filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance, which was allowed vide order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Family Court, Rohtak @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of the application, which order has been challenged in the High Court by filing CRR (F)-187-2016, whereas she also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was decided by the JMIC, Rohtak on 17th March, 2016 by holding that the respondent herein would be entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 7000/- per month from the date of filing of the application with a further direction to the petitioner not to commit any act of domestic violence in future.

The order passed by the JMIC, Rohtak was appealed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by the petitioner herein but the same was dismissed. However, while dismissing the appeal it was clarified that the respondent-wife could claim maintenance only in one form of litigation against the husband either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings or proceedings as allowed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent in both these petitions is a legally wedded wife of Raj Kumar, the petitioner herein. The marriage did not survive the test of time which resulted in a petition being filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed, holding the petitioner liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance and in the second petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, he was ordered to make a payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month towards maintenance with the stipulation that the respondent-wife could not claim under both. The respondent-wife has not challenged the order passed under the Domestic Violence Act, whereby the Court has held that she will be entitled to claim maintenance only in one form against the husband either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings or under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

5. Both the Courts below in both separate proceedings have returned categoric finding that there is no evidence available on the record which would substantiate petitioners earning. The respondent-wife was not able to substantiate her plea that the petitioner herein was a man of means and has a shop of readymade garments at Gandhinagar, Delhi and earning Rs. 60,000/- per month nor was the petitioner herein able to establish the fact that the respondent-wife was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing sewing and tailoring work and had sufficient means to support herself. The petitioner herein also was not able to establish that he was suffering from tuberculosis and therefore, incapable of earning a living for

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