Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 659 (HP)

Sunder Lal v. Nisha Devi

2013-07-12

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral). This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 27.2.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Revision Petition No. 9 of 2007 modifying the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr in case No. 13-4 of 2006. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent had filed a petition, under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in February 2005. The respondent resided with petitioner in matrimonial home till January 2006, even though after about one month from the date of solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner started mal-treating the respondent. He demanded dowry from the respondent and also put pressure on respondent to sell her share in immovable property. The behaviour of the petitioner with the passage of time became harsh and he started giving beatings to the respondent. On 12.1.2006, the petitioner came to the house under the influence of liquor and gave beatings to the respondent. The respondent spent whole night in the cowshed. The petitioner is a chronic drinker. The respondent has no independent source of income. The petitioner is working as pharmacist and is drawing Rs.12000/- per month salary. He has landed property including two apple orchards from where he has income more than Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. 3. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing reply. It has been stated that respondent of her own left matrimonial home on 12.1.2006 without the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner never compelled the respondent to dispose of her property. The allegations of beatings and ill-treatment attributed to petitioner were denied. It has been stated that petitioner is not earning more than Rs.6000/-per month. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 28.5.2007 has allowed the petition and awarded Rs.2700/- per month maintenance from the date of application to the respondent. In addition, litigation expenses Rs.3000/- were also allowed. The order dated 28.5.2007 was assailed in revision, which was partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 27.2.2008. The learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance Rs.2000/- per month from the date of application and litigation expenses were also reduced from Rs.3000/- to Rs.2000/-, hence petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. In addition, litigation expenses Rs.3000/- were also allowed. The order dated 28.5.2007 was assailed in revision, which was partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 27.2.2008. The learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance Rs.2000/- per month from the date of application and litigation expenses were also reduced from Rs.3000/- to Rs.2000/-, hence petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. AW 1 Nisha Devi has stated that after her marriage with petitioner in February 2005, she lived with him up to 12.1.2006. She gave birth to one son on 4.6.2006. The petitioner used to come to house under the influence of liquor and used to give her beatings. On 12.1.2006, petitioner gave her beatings and on next morning she left her matrimonial house and went to her parents house. She has stated that her father has died and she has an old mother. She has no source of income. The petitioner is working as pharmacist and earning Rs.12000/- per month. He has 12 bighas land having orchard and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from the orchard. She had delivered a child in the house, she was removed to the hospital where the child died. She claimed Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance. She was cross-examined by the petitioner, but from her lengthy cross-examination, petitioner could not extract any favourable statement. 5. AW 2 Kishori Lal on the basis of record has stated that gross salary of the petitioner in November 2008 was Rs.8087/-. He has proved salary certificate Ex. PW 2/A. RW 1 Sunder Lal has stated that after deduction he is drawing Rs.4500/- per month salary. He has employed a servant for looking after his land whom he is paying Rs.2700/- per month. He has a son from his first wife, his first wife had died on 14.9.2004. In cross-examination he has admitted that after 12.1.2006 he has not paid any maintenance to respondent. 6. RW 2 Moti Ram has stated that he does not know who gives maintenance to the mother of the petitioner. RW 3 Prem Lal has stated that mother of petitioner generally lives with Balbir, but sometimes she also stays with the petitioner. Balbir is working in NJPC and mainly maintaining the mother. RW 4 Manjula has proved bill Ex. RW 4/A signed by driver Tek Raj. RW 3 Prem Lal has stated that mother of petitioner generally lives with Balbir, but sometimes she also stays with the petitioner. Balbir is working in NJPC and mainly maintaining the mother. RW 4 Manjula has proved bill Ex. RW 4/A signed by driver Tek Raj. She has stated that payment of the bill was made by the petitioner. This is the entire evidence led by the parties. 7. It emerges from the evidence that respondent has no source of income. She is living with her mother. On the contrary the petitioner is a pharmacist and having orchard. He has admitted that after 12.1.2006 he has not paid any maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner has also admitted that he has employed a servant to look after his land. AW 2 Kishori Lal has proved that petitioner is drawing gross-salary Rs.8087/- per month. In addition to salary, the petitioner is also having orchard. The mother of the petitioner is residing with Balbir, brother of the petitioner. The petitioner has sufficient means, he can easily spare money for the maintenance of respondent. 8. The petitioner is under legal obligation to maintain respondent. The respondent has no source of income. The trial court had awarded Rs.2700/- per month maintenance and Rs.3000/-litigation expenses, which has been reduced by the learned Sessions Judge. Now as per impugned order, Rs.2000/- per month on account of maintenance and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses are payable to respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. The scope of petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C is very limited. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated. There is no perversity in the impugned judgement. 9. In view of above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, also stands vacated. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner and is still lying in deposit in the Registry of this Court, be released to the respondent alongwith interest by remitting the same in her bank account to be furnished by the respondent.