Criminal Revision No. 2625 of 2014 (O&M)

-1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No. 2625 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 29.09.2016

Monu Songra

....Petitioner

Versus

Pinki

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate

for the respondent.

****

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.

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.

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

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia

2016.10.05 15:30

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No. 2625 of 2014 (O&M)

-2-

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withdrawn.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.”

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

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia

2016.10.05 15:30

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No. 2625 of 2014 (O&M)

-3-

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.

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 agains