2023:PHHC:101960

Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226

CRR-4222-2014 (O&M)

Date of order: 07.08.2023

Yashpal @ Yashpal Goyal

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Sarika & Another

…..Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

*****

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Vide order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-4), learned

JMIC, Karnal had dismissed petition filed by the wife of the petitioner i.e.

respondent No.1 herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Vide the impugned order

dated 15.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, the

above said order dated 08.11.2011, has been set aside. Hence, present

revision petition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that

the petitioner was married to respondent No.1 on 09.10.2002 and they

have been living separately since 22.03.2003 i.e after five months of

marriage. It is submitted that one child was born out of their wedlock on

12.10.2003 who died on 13.10.2003. It is submitted that respondent No.1

left the matrimonial home of her own accord, and though it has been

pleaded by respondent No.1 that she was thrown out of the matrimonial

home on 22.03.2003, the said Averment is utterly false and she is not able

SUNENA

2023.08.17 11:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:101960

Page 2 of 8

to produce evidence in support of her allegation. It is further submitted

that vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2014, the petitioner has been

directed to pay maintenance allowance to respondent No.1 @ Rs.6,000/-

per month from the date of order passed by learned trial Court i.e.

08.11.2011.

3.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a

Central Government employee and was formerly employed in the Audit

Department at Chandigarh. However, respondent No.1 had filed an FIR

under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the petitioner and his family in

which the petitioner was convicted for one year, while his family was

acquitted. It is submitted that due to his conviction, the petitioner was

suspended from his job vide order dated 16.06.2014, and suspension was

further extended vide order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure P9 and P10

respectively), as a result of which the petitioner was only getting

subsistence allowance. It is submitted that accordingly, the petitioner

cannot afford to make the payment as per impugned direction.

4.

It is also submitted that the learned trial Court vide its

order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P4) was correct in dismissing the

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.1 on the ground

that there is no evidence on record which shows that respondent No.1 was

compelled to leave the company of the petitioner. It is submitted that in

fact, respondent No.1 had left the matrimonial home on her own will in

March, 2003 without any reasonable cause.

SUNENA

2023.08.17 11:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:101960

Page 3 of 8

5.

Learned counsel further submits that it has been alleged

against the petitioner that the petitioner beat the respondent-wife during

her pregnancy because of which she had to get herself admitted to Neera

Nursing Home at Karnal. It is submitted that there is no medical evidence

on record to corroborate the fact that respondent No.1 was ever admitted

in Karnal at Neera Nursing Home. On the contrary, PW2-Sanjiv Kumar,

brother of respondent No.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he

had brought respondent No.1 on 22.03.2003 from Jaipur Gardem Hospital

where she was admitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits

that as per cross-examination of PW2-Sanjiv Kumar, brother of respondent

No.1, respondent No.1 had left her matrimonial home on 05.08.2004,

which means that allegations levelled b