Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 590 (HP)

VIPIN KUMAR BHARDWAJ v. AMBIKA BHARDWAJ

2010-03-25

SURINDER SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-This petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 31.3.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Kangra at Dharamshala reversing the order of dismissal of application, under Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the learned trial Court, and thereby awarding an amount of Rs.1000/-per month to the respondent-wife, from the date of filing the petition, i.e., 31.5.2004. 2. The relationship of husband and wife inter se the parties are admitted. In fact, petitioner-husband was a widower, having female child from the earlier marriage and it is an admitted fact that he married the respondent-wife thereafter. She alleged maltreatment and torture at the hands of the petitioner-husband for not meeting her demand of dowry. She had also reported to the Gram Panchayat and also lodged report to the police. On this, petitioner threatened to divorce her. It is alleged that on 26.12.2002, she was given merciless beatings. She took refuge in her parental home. She was neglected and refused maintenance whereas she is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner is running his own School under the head and style ‘M.R. Model School’ at Chintpurani District Una, and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. Petitioner-husband denied the allegations and in reply stated that respondent has an income of Rs.20,000/- per month as she is the head of Educational Institute Little Angel Public High School situated at Jamanabad and she left the company of petitioner-husband without any reasonable excuse. Respondent-wife emphatically denied that she was the Incharge of the Angel School, as alleged. The petitioner-husband examined Shri Roop Lal Verma (RW1) Section Officer of the Affiliation Branch of Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. He produced the record of the Little Angel Public School. He stated that the said School is a registered Society and Shri Anil Kumar is the Headmaster. The name of the respondent-wife did not find mention anywhere in the record, as an employee of the said School. 4. Admittedly, respondent is not a B. Ed. therefore, as per the norms, she could not have been appointed as a teacher. 5. He stated that the said School is a registered Society and Shri Anil Kumar is the Headmaster. The name of the respondent-wife did not find mention anywhere in the record, as an employee of the said School. 4. Admittedly, respondent is not a B. Ed. therefore, as per the norms, she could not have been appointed as a teacher. 5. According to Shri Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner further ventilated that respondent has failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself and also that she was residing in the house of her parents without any reasonable cause. Both his submissions are without any substance. The respondent categorically stated that she was left without maintenance and has no source of income. The plea of the petitioner-husband fell flat by his own witnesses that she was not employed in the School, as alleged. Further this fact has also been mentioned by her in para 6 of the petition, to which the petitioner-husband failed to rebut. She also stated that she had to take refuge in the house of her parents because she was given beatings and her husband raised the demand of dowry. This cannot be said that she was residing with her parents of her own free will or without any reasonable cause. 6. The parents of the respondent-wife however, affluent they are, are under no obligation to maintain the respondent-wife. It is only the obligation of the husband, i.e., the petitioner herein to maintain his wife, who is having substantial income and on the top of it he is a able bodied person and has capacity and the potentiality to earn and provide maintenance to her. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, reversing the order passed by the learned trial Court who had dismissed the claim for maintenance of the respondent on whimsical grounds. 7. After examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the order for the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petition is therefore, dismissed. 8. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. Cr.M.P. No. 425/2009. Infructuous.