Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1294 (HP)

Balmohan v. Kunta Devi

2014-09-18

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 854 of 2014. Heard. In view of the grounds taken in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the Revision Petition is condoned. The Registry is directed to register the Criminal Revision Petition. The application is disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 268 of 2014. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2013, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 99-Cr.A/10 of 2011. 3. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this Criminal Revision are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.5.2006. A male child was born on 4.6.2007. The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the petitioner. According to the averments contained in the application, the petitioner was casting aspersions at the character of the respondent. She was administered beatings by the petitioner. She was also maltreated for not bringing sufficient dowry. The petitioner was not allowing her to meet with her parents. The application was contested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is the respondent, who has left the matrimonial house without any reason. According to him, the compromise was arrived at between the parties on 28.3.2009, whereby the respondent had undertaken to accompany him. However, she had only lived with him for 2-3 days. The learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist class), Rajgarh, framed the issues and allowed the application preferred by the respondent. The petitioner was restrained from indulging in any act of domestic violence against the respondent. She was held entitled for maintenance allowance of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application. She was also granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/-on 26.8.2011. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2011, filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. The learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan partly allowed the appeal by reducing the amount of compensation from 10,000/- to Rs. 5000/-. The rest of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist class), Rajgarh, dated 26.8.2011 was upheld. It is, in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, has vehemently argued that both the Courts’ below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. 5000/-. The rest of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist class), Rajgarh, dated 26.8.2011 was upheld. It is, in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, has vehemently argued that both the Courts’ below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. He also contended that the respondent has contracted second marriage. Lastly, it was contended that the income of his client was very meagre. 6. I have heard Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.5.2006. They have been blessed with a son on 4.6.2007. The respondent has appeared as PW-1. According to her, the behavior of the petitioner for two years after the marriage was good. The petitioner was a Tailor. Her sister-in-law started residing with them. Both of them started maltreating her. The petitioner closed the shop and left the respondent at her parents’ house. He came to take her back in the month of September and she accompanied him but petitioner and his family members administered beatings to her and she was saved by one Raksha Devi and Kiran. They were called to the Police Station. The petitioner has contracted second marriage. PW-2, mother of the respondent has supported the version of the respondent. According to her, the respondent was maltreated. She was subjected to leave the matrimonial house. She was sent to petitioner’s house but was administered beatings. The matter was also reported at Police Post Nohradhar. The petitioner was doing tailoring work and was also an agriculturist. 8. The petitioner has also appeared as a witness. According to him, the matter was compromised. After compromise, the respondent came for only one day and thereafter left the house. He was ready and willing to take her alongwith their son back. He was working on the land of his father and was an agriculturist. He has to bear the expenses towards the maintenance of his parents. He admitted that the parents of the respondent had reported the matter against him at Police Station Nohradhar. He has also admitted that the respondent had to obtain a search warrant from the Court to get the custody of her child. He denied that his income was Rs.10-12000/- per month. He admitted it to be Rs.3,000/- per month. 9. Mr. He admitted that the parents of the respondent had reported the matter against him at Police Station Nohradhar. He has also admitted that the respondent had to obtain a search warrant from the Court to get the custody of her child. He denied that his income was Rs.10-12000/- per month. He admitted it to be Rs.3,000/- per month. 9. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel has also argued that the parties have obtained divorce by way of customary deed. The parties are Hindus. The divorce can only be under Hindu Law. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-5, application, dated 6.4.2013, whereby the petitioner wanted to place on record the birth certificate of a child. The respondent has filed detailed reply to the same on 26.7.2013. The application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, on 10.12.2013. 10. What emerges from the facts enumerated, hereinabove, is that the relation between the parties remained cordial for a period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner started maltreating the respondent. She was given beatings. She was forced to leave the matrimonial house and was also forced to go to the Court to get the custody of the child. She has not contracted the second marriage rather the respondent has deposed in her statement that the petitioner was living with one Satya Devi. The petitioner is working as a Tailor. He is also an agriculturist. The learned Courts’ below have rightly come to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner could not be less than Rs. 5,000/-. The respondent has only been held entitled to a sum of Rs.1500/- per month, towards maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, has already reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The respondent had to leave the matrimonial house due to the maltreatment meted out to her. She has not left the house voluntarily. The matter was also reported at Police Post Nohradhar. Thus, there is no merit in the contentions raised by Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent is habitual of filing complaints. She has been forced to file complaints against her husband initially at Police Post Nohradhar. She has to go to the Court to get the custody of her son. The petitioner has not led any clinching evidence to establish that the respondent has contracted second marriage. She has been forced to file complaints against her husband initially at Police Post Nohradhar. She has to go to the Court to get the custody of her son. The petitioner has not led any clinching evidence to establish that the respondent has contracted second marriage. 11. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications if any are also disposed of.