Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 20 (HP)

Pawan Singh v. Babita Kumari

2014-01-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2013, whereby he has upheld the order dated 22.3.2013 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Barasar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in complaint No.144-1 of 2012. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Babita Kumari, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1 for the sake of convenience) has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Pawan Kumar, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner” for the sake of convenience) and respondents No.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as “proforma respondents No. 2 to 4” for the sake of convenience). According to respondent No.1, she was married to the petitioner in the month of May 2006 as per Hindu rites. They lived together as husband and wife at Village Nanawan and thereafter at Mohali (Punjab). After few months of marriage, behaviour of the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 changed and they started maltreating her for demand of dowry and money. The petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 had been demanding money from her father. Her father gave a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to them. The petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 assured to return the money. The father of respondent No.1 retired as Principal in the month of March 2012. At that time also, the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 demanded money and took a sum of Rs.50,000/-from her father. However, the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 continued maltreating respondent No.1. In the month of April 2012, she was beaten up by petitioner and ousted her from the matrimonial house. Father of respondent No.1 reported the matter before the local Gram Panchayat, but petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 did not appear before the Gram Panchayat. She started living with her parents at village Kulhera since April 2012. According to her, at the time of fixing of marriage, they had told that petitioner was a software engineer, however, fact of the matter is that he was simply 10+2. 3. The petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 contested the complaint. She started living with her parents at village Kulhera since April 2012. According to her, at the time of fixing of marriage, they had told that petitioner was a software engineer, however, fact of the matter is that he was simply 10+2. 3. The petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 contested the complaint. They alleged that they had not taken any dowry at the time of marriage. According to them, respondent No.1 herself has left the matrimonial house. They have denied that they ever maltreated respondent No.1 and had ever taken money from her father. Proforma respondents No. 3 and 4 have disinherited petitioner and respondent No.1 from their movable and immovable property. 4. Respondent No.1 filed rejoinder to the reply filed by petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4. 5. The complaint was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide order dated 22.3.2013. He held respondent No.1 entitled to Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. He directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- per month as rent to enable her to secure an alternate accommodation and return tikka (gold) to respondent No.1. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.3.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 19.10.2013. 7. Mr. Surinder Parkash Sharma, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. According to him, petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 have never maltreated respondent No.1. He further contended that respondent No.1 has left the matrimonial house of her own volition. According to him, respondent No.1 had neglected the petitioner. He lastly contended that respondent No.1 was employed at Mohali and was earning Rs.7500/- per month. 8. I have heard Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, learned Advocate and also gone through the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2013 and order dated 22.3.2013. 9. Respondent No.1 appeared as CW1 and led her evidence by filing an affidavit Ext.CW1/A. CW2 Vivek Kumar led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext.CW2/A, CW3 Jaswant Singh led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext.CW3/A. CW4 Subhash Chand also led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext. CW4/A. CW5 Naresh Chand led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext. Respondent No.1 appeared as CW1 and led her evidence by filing an affidavit Ext.CW1/A. CW2 Vivek Kumar led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext.CW2/A, CW3 Jaswant Singh led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext.CW3/A. CW4 Subhash Chand also led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext. CW4/A. CW5 Naresh Chand led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext. CW5/A. CW6 Joginder Singh led his evidence by filing an affidavit, Ext. CW6/A. Respondent No.1 Pawan Singh appeared as RW1 and sworn an affidavit Ext. RW1/A. Sher Singh led his evidence by filing an affidavit Ext. RW2/A. RW3 Partap Singh also led his evidence by filing affidavit, Ext. RW3/A. 10. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. According to respondent No.1, petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 started demanding dowry. She was maltreated by them. Petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 had taken a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from her father and assured him to return the same. She was given beatings in the month of April, 2012. She had started residing at her parental house per force. However, she has admitted that at the time of marriage, no dowry was given. There is no documentary proof to establish on record that father of respondent No.1 has ever given a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4. However, it has come on record that the petitioner had purchased a scooter on 26.9.2009 and payment of the scooter was made by family of respondent No.1. It has also come on record that petitioner was disinherited by his parents. However, fact of the matter is that respondent No.1 lived with proforma respondents till 2007 thereafter, she lived with the petitioner in a rented accommodation till 2012. CW2 Vivek Kumar has deposed that he went to Mohali at the instance of father of respondent No.1. She was weeping. He brought her back to village Kulhera. CW3 is father of respondent No.1. He has deposed that his daughter had telephonically informed about maltreatment meted out to her by the petitioner. CW4 Subhash Chand has deposed that the petitioner used to demand money for running a shop. It has also come in the evidence that respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Gram Panchayat Nanawan, but petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 did not appear before the Panchayat. CW4 Subhash Chand has deposed that the petitioner used to demand money for running a shop. It has also come in the evidence that respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Gram Panchayat Nanawan, but petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 did not appear before the Panchayat. Petitioner has admitted that he has not paid maintenance to respondent No.1 since April 2012. Respondent No.1 is an MBA. Respondent No.1 was initially doing job, but after marriage she was compelled to give up the job. She is residing with her parents. It has also come on record that at the time of marriage, petitioner was running a shop and the sale of shop was about Rs.1000/- per day. He has opened another shop of garments in the month of March 2012. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner has sufficient source of income to maintain respondent No.1. It is duty of the petitioner to maintain respondent No.1 by providing her separate accommodation. She was turned out of the house by petitioner in the month of March 2012. A sum of Rs.1,000/- ordered to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 for rented accommodation is reasonable. Learned trial court has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses, which cannot be said on higher side. Plea of respondent No.1 with regard to istridhan has rightly been rejected by the learned courts below. Petitioner has retained the gold (tikka) of respondent No.1. He has been ordered to return the same to respondent No.1. The order dated 22.3.2013 has been passed by the learned trial court taking into consideration the income of the petitioner from the garments shop. The petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for buying scooter, which has been paid by family of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has no independent source of income. She is solely dependent upon the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has shown willingness to live with petitioner. Therefore, the courts below have rightly granted the maintenance, alternate accommodation, litigation expenses and return of gold (tikka) to respondent No.1. There is no perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 22.3.2013 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Barasar, District Hamirpur, H.P. which has rightly been upheld by learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur vide judgment dated 19.10.2013. 11. There is no perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 22.3.2013 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Barasar, District Hamirpur, H.P. which has rightly been upheld by learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur vide judgment dated 19.10.2013. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No costs.