Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1156 (HP)

Chet Ram v. Meena Devi

2017-10-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner against the order, dated 7.8.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, affirming the order dated 29.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, with a prayer to allow the present petition and set aside both the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-wife maintained the petition, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the petitioner-husband, for grant of maintenance allowance on the allegations that respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner-husband and the marriage was solemnized on 14.8.1997. After the marriage, both husband and wife resided together for about eight years. In the year 2005, the respondent-wife was thrown out of the house of petitioner-husband. On 18.9.2005, the petitioner undertook to maintain the respondent-wife in the presence of Panchayat. Thereafter, as per compromise dated 18.9.2005, the respondent-wife again joined the company of petitioner-husband at village Byuhi Manotla. In the month of August, 2006, respondent-wife was again thrown out of the house by the petitioner-husband and no maintenance was provided to her. The respondent has left no way except to go to the house of her parents and thereafter, respondent is residing in the house of her brother at village Kuthakhar. The petitioner has neglected the respondent-wife intentionally and he has solemnized second marriage with another lady. The respondent-wife has no source of income to maintain herself, whereas, the petitioner-husband is serving as Process Server in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. The petition is resisted and contested by the respondent-wife on the ground that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 14.8.1997 before the Marriage Officer, Solan, according to Hindu rights. The learned Court below in an application awarded maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, vide order dated 29.5.2015 and against the said order, the petitioner-husband maintained Criminal Revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, which was also dismissed. 4. The learned Court below in an application awarded maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, vide order dated 29.5.2015 and against the said order, the petitioner-husband maintained Criminal Revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, which was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband has argued that taking into consideration the averments, as has come in the petition, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that respondent-wife was married earlier at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and there is no divorce. He has further argued that there is no marriage with the present respondent-wife. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife has argued that the petitioner has married with the respondent in a legal manner and the marriage was duly performed before the Marriage Officer, Solan. He has further argued that the marriage was also performed in the temple and they lived together, as husband-wife from 1997 continuously for more than eight years and thereafter the petitioner has stopped for maintaining her. Further, the respondent-wife has maltreating by the petitioner-husband. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband has argued that the respondent is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, therefore, he cannot be held liable to pay maintenance. 5. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 6. Respondent Meena Devi, has deposed on oath that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 14.8.1997. Their marriage took place before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Solan and thereafter in the temple. Marriage Certificate Ex.AW1/A, was issued and the photographs of the marriage at the temple were clicked. The other witness Ramesh Chauhan, Reader in the Office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Solan, had produced the record. He has deposed that the marriage of respondent was solemnized with the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Solan, on 14.8.1997. He has proved on record Marriage Certificate Ex.AW1/A, which bears the signatures of parties. In his cross-examination, he has denied that certificate did not pertain to the parties. He has categorically denied that the marriage certificate was a forged one. He has proved on record Marriage Certificate Ex.AW1/A, which bears the signatures of parties. In his cross-examination, he has denied that certificate did not pertain to the parties. He has categorically denied that the marriage certificate was a forged one. Though, in cross-examination of Meena Devi-respondent, she has admitted that when she was at the age of 10- 11 years, she got married and that marriage was solemnized at Ghumarwin and the said marriage was dissolved before the Gram Panchayat, meaning thereby that the marriage was given no effect. It is only the marriage thereafter she solemnized at Kunihar, which can said to be the first marriage of Meena Devi, but thereafter, her husband died and when she was maintained the claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, the respondent met with the petitioner at Solan, who was working in the learned Court and solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 14.8.1997. This witness clearly proved on record that there was a valid marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. Now, coming to the quantum of maintenance, as awarded by the learned Court below, the petitioner had not denied that he being in service in the Judicial Department, as a Process Server and his salary as Rs.20,000/- and also the fact that he was not providing maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner has admitted the fact that he was working as a Process Server in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Mandi and was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He has also admitted that the respondent has no source of income to maintain herself. Even if, the salary of the petitioner-husband is taken at Rs.15,000/- per month, as argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in these circumstances, the maintenance granted to the respondent-wife to the sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, cannot said to be excessive at all. Even, mother and brother of the respondent-wife have passed away and she has left with no other source to maintain herself. In these circumstances, after careful appreciation of the evidence and the material, which has come on record, this Court finds that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and reasoned and so, no interference is required by this Court. 7. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the present petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the present petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.