Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2577 (HP)

Kishori Lal v. Mahima Devi

2016-12-05

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner (husband), who was the respondent before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to called as 'the respondent’) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as 'the Code’) read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 26.12.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, H.P. in Criminal Revision No. 31-Cr. R/10 of 2015, whereby order dated 19.06.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, Sirmour, H.P. in Criminal Petition No. 01/4 of 2013, was affirmed, wherein the respondent (wife), who was the petitioner before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter to be called as 'the petitioner’) was granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- per month from the date of passing of the order. 2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized about 36 years ago, as per Hindu customs and tradition, out of the said wedlock two daughters and a son were born. The relation between the parties remained cordial for about 20 years. However, 16 years back, the petitioner fell down from a tree and her both legs were fractured. As per the respondent, the petitioner did not conduct her treatment properly and she became bedridden. Thereafter, the respondent started misbehaving with her, she was beaten up by him on many occasions and she was sent to the house of her brother. Several efforts were made by the brother of the petitioner to send her back to her matrimonial house, but the respondent refused to reside with her. As per the petitioner, she is residing in the house of his brother, since 07.06.2012 and she has no source of income to maintain herself. On the other hand, the respondent is an Ex.Army personnel, getting pension of Rs. 11,000/- per month and he had been working in BSNL, from where he was getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondent is also having agricultural land, wherefrom his monthly income is stated to be Rs. 40,000/- per month. 3. The respondent by filing reply in the learned trial Court, contested the claims of the petitioner and refuted the assertions, as made by her. 25,000/- per month. The respondent is also having agricultural land, wherefrom his monthly income is stated to be Rs. 40,000/- per month. 3. The respondent by filing reply in the learned trial Court, contested the claims of the petitioner and refuted the assertions, as made by her. According to the respondent, relation between the parties became strained about a year and eight months ago, when the brother and son-in-law of the petitioner have started motivating her to misbehave with the respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioner had also relinquished her share in favour of her brother. The respondent denied that the petitioner became bedridden, as he had not provided proper facilities to her. The respondent specifically stated that he had tried his level best to bring the petitioner back, but she refused. The respondent served several legal notices upon her to call her back, but at the instance of her brother, she refused to join the company of the respondent. The respondent has further submitted that previously, he was getting pension of Rs. 10,021/- from Army and Rs. 14,107/- as salary, from BSNL, as he was working there as Class IV employee. However, as of now he had been retired from BSNL, getting a pension of Rs. 3,996/- per month and he has no income, as alleged by the petitioner. 4. The learned Court below has allowed the petition file by the petitioner, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and granted maintenance to her to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- per month. Thereafter, respondent filed revision petition in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. and vide order dated 26.12.2015 the same was dismissed. Hence the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone the record carefully. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (petitioner before this Court) has argued that as the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are perverse, the present petition is required to be entertained, under Section 482 of the Code, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the orders of the learned Courts below may be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the orders of the learned Courts below may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (respondent before this Court) has argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable, as the respondent had already maintained a revision petition in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan and the orders, passed therein, are just and reasoned, hence the present petition is not maintained at all. As orders, passed by the Courts below, are just and reasoned, therefore, the respondent is barred from maintaining the second revision petition. 7. To appreciate the arguments of the parties, I have gone through the record of the case carefully. 8. The petitioner while appearing in the witness box, as AW-1, has stated that her both legs have been paralyzed and she has become bedridden. She has no other source of income, accordingly she is now dependent on the respondent. She had further alleged that the respondent was getting Rs. 11,000/- as pension from Army and Rs. 25,000/- from BSNL, therefore, she has demanded Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance. In her cross-examination she has admitted that she was treated at Command Hospital, Chandimandir and subsequently after discharge, she was being treated there. She stated that she was ready to join the company of the respondent, but he left her. 9. Dr. Naveen Gupta, has proved on record the disability of the petitioner to the extent of 100%, vide certificate Ex.AW2/A. 10. The respondent has himself appeared in the witness box, as RW-1 and deposed that he is only getting pension of Rs. 3,996/- from BSNL and Rs. 10,000/- pension from Army. He further stated that he had issued notices to the petitioner, besides that he had also sent medicines to her, but she had refused to receive. 11. The learned Courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent is liable to maintain the petitioner, who is residing with her brother, having 100% disability, as the respondent is not keeping her. The learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the income of the respondent i.e. Rs. 14,000/-. So, Rs. 7,500/- as granted to the petitioner, is just and reasonable, as there is no one else to support the petitioner. The learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the income of the respondent i.e. Rs. 14,000/-. So, Rs. 7,500/- as granted to the petitioner, is just and reasonable, as there is no one else to support the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent is an able-bodied person, capable to earn enough and having agricultural land too, thus, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are well reasoned and needs no interference. 12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.