Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 271 (HP)

HARMINDER SINGH v. BISHMA DEVI

2004-10-11

M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred as the Code) has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.10.2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby the order dated 22.3.2003 passed by the learned trial Magistrate awarding maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month has been upheld. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code against the petitioner before the trial Court claiming maintenance. Her case is that she was married to the petitioner on 16.1.2001 and after marriage the petitioner started maltreating her and she had to take shelter in her parents house. Though she again joined the company of the petitioner, but he again maltreated her and she had to again take shelter in her parental house. On 19.11.2001 as per the custom, a divorce took place between the parties before the Panchayat, but even after the divorce, the petitioner continued threatening the respondent and did not provide her maintenance despite having monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- per month, whereas, the respondent had no source of income. 3. The petition was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds that it was not maintainable, that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, that the respondent is not a person competent to file the petition and that the provisions of Section 125 of the Code are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. On merits, while claiming the relationship of husband and wife between the parties the allegations of maltreatment were denied. It has been claimed that respondent had voluntarily left the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause repeatedly and had pressurized the petitioner to divorce her which was not agreed to by him. It is also averred that petitioner himself had no source of income and is unemployed youth. Thus, the claim of the respondent for maintenance has been denied. 4. The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner, wherein he grounds of defence as taken in the reply have been repudiated and the claim as made out in the petitioner has been reaffirmed. 5. Thus, the claim of the respondent for maintenance has been denied. 4. The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner, wherein he grounds of defence as taken in the reply have been repudiated and the claim as made out in the petitioner has been reaffirmed. 5. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court held the respondent entitled for the maintenance from the petitioner and accordingly awarded maintenance in her favour at the rate of Rs. 600/-per month. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, petitioner preferred a Revision Petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi which he dismissed vide his impugned judgment dated 16th of October, 2003. The aggrieved petitioner has thus filed the present petition. 7. Since on the date of hearing, none appeared for the petitioner, therefore, I could not have the advantage of hearing anyone for the petitioner, however, arguments for the respondent were heard and record perused. 8. Be it stated that this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code. There are no limits, fetters or restrictions placed on the powers of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution which enables the High Court in proper case to set aside or vary orders of the lower Court. However, mere wrong decisions without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 but the Court will interfere only when an error of law is apparent on the face of record which has resulted in gross injustice. Thus, the High Court under its powers of superintendence under Article 227 has a very limited and narrow scope to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. 9. Section 482 of the Code, undoubtedly, preseve wide powers to the High Court but such powers can be invoked to give effect to an order of the Court or if there is abuse of process of the Court or in order to secure the ends of justice. 9. Section 482 of the Code, undoubtedly, preseve wide powers to the High Court but such powers can be invoked to give effect to an order of the Court or if there is abuse of process of the Court or in order to secure the ends of justice. However, no party gets a vested right or inherent right to seek interference by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court because these powers are discretionary and are to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases, When a party approaches the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction and its general powers of superintendence basing their grievance on facts and substantial question of law which goes to the very root and genesis of the case, the High Court will be entitled to entertain the petition. However, while exercising the jurisdiction under these provisions, the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts even if another view is possible on the basis of the material on record. 10. In the case in hand, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the respondent, being the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner being in a position to maintain her, the respondent is entitled to the awarded maintenance. The grounds of challenge as raised in the petition are regarding misappreciation of evidence and ignoring the fact that the respondent herself had voluntarily left the society of the petitioner. These are basically questions of facts which have concurrently been decided by the two Courts below after due consideration of the evidence on record against the petitioner. The findings so recorded are not perverse and call for no interference by this Court. 11. As a result, this petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.