Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 207 (PNJ)

Gulshan Kumar v. Reetu

2014-01-24

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Petitioner Gulshan Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. 2. In the petition, it is stated that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and evidence on the record, whereby the application of the petitioner in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for furnishing some security qua the repayment of entire maintenance amount has been rejected. It is further stated in the petition that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.05.2004. The petitioner is a handicap and dependent upon his parents. It is also stated that the relations between the parties became sour on 07.01.2005 when the respondent got her pregnancy terminated against the wishes of the petitioner. 3. It is further stated in the petition that deed of settlement has been executed on 11.01.2005 about the divorce between the parties and since then they are residing separately. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ad interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the respondent-wife vide order dated 27.05.2013. The petitioner moved an application seeking direction to respondent-wife to furnish security qua repayment of entire maintenance amount to be paid as an interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition, if ultimately, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. This application has also been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.11.2013. It is also stated in the petition that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact and peculiar circumstances of the present case, wherein, the whole dispute with regard to claims stands settled on 11.01.2005. 4. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is an admitted fact that interim maintenance granted by the Court vide order dated 27.05.2013 @ Rs. 5000/- is not challenged in this petition. Therefore, this Court need not to go into the matrimonial dispute between the parties etc. The only point in this petition is that petitioner filed application before the Court directing respondent to furnish security regarding the interim maintenance, which the Court has declined. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for asking such a security for payment of refund of the interim maintenance, if the petition is ultimately decided against the applicant, who is seeking maintenance. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for asking such a security for payment of refund of the interim maintenance, if the petition is ultimately decided against the applicant, who is seeking maintenance. The proceedings are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is for the concerned Court to see whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, any such security is to be taken or not. It is nowhere mandatory to furnish security for the refund of interim maintenance, if ultimately, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is dismissed on merit. There is no restriction on the powers of the Court to ask for furnishing security but the respondent has no right to ask for the directions. Otherwise also, in the present case, it is only mentioned that parties have settled their dispute on 11.01.2005 but it is no ground for seeking direction for furnishing security. Firstly, the settlement is to be proved before the Court by leading evidence. Secondly, the Court is to see that the settlement should be a valid settlement. Thirdly, still the Court is to decide whether the applicant is entitled to maintenance or not, despite the settlement. 6. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nothing has been pointed out as to how this order is misuse or abuse of the process of the Court or illegal or against any specific provisions. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited order passed by this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. Paramjit Kaur, 1990(1) CLJ (C.Cr. & Rev.) 636. I have gone through this cited order and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in that case counsel for the respondent was having no objection if the trial Court places some conditions to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, but in the present case, application was contested before the trial Court. 8. Resultantly, finding no merit, the present petition stands dismissed.