Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 168 (MP)

Gurupreet Singh v. Harmanjot Singh Kaur

2017-02-02

VIRENDRA SINGH

body2017
ORDER 1. The petitioners have preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.9.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.388/2014, whereby learned Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the present petitioners and allowed Criminal Appeal No.329/14 preferred by the respondent and has enhanced the maintenance amount awarded in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore vide order dated 11.4.2014 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9/2013 from Rs.7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month and also directed to petitioner No.1 to furnish security bond of Rs.15 lacs instead of Rs.5-5 lacs each petitioner as directed by the learned Magistrate. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.11.2010 in Jullundhar, Punjab. Gradually fractions developed between both of them on account of place of abode. The petitioner No.1 was employed in Gudgaon, therefore, he was residing in Delhi. The respondent belongs to Indore and wanted to live in Indore and therefore, she was forcing him to come and live with her in Indore. To pressurizing him for the purpose, she filed an application under Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner appeared before the Court and offered to keep her with him. But instead to come, she withdrew her application. Thereafter, she filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with an application for interim maintenance under section 23 of the Act, which was allowed and interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month was ordered. The Judicial Magistrate also directed to furnish a bond of Rs.5 lacs each for security of Streedhan. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, both the parties preferred appeals, which were decided by the common impugned order. 3. The present revision is preferred on the ground that the learned lower Court did not consider the fact that the respondent was not entitled for any maintenance as she herself has deserted the petitioner No.1 without any sufficient reason. The petitioner is still ready to take her back without any condition. 3. The present revision is preferred on the ground that the learned lower Court did not consider the fact that the respondent was not entitled for any maintenance as she herself has deserted the petitioner No.1 without any sufficient reason. The petitioner is still ready to take her back without any condition. The learned trial Judge did not properly consider that the gross income of the petitioner No.1 is only Rs.18,000/- per month, which after deduction comes to Rs.15,704/- and it is very difficulty to live with such income in the City like Delhi. The respondent is a Post Graduate M.Sc. (Bio Informetic) and was working on the post of Quality Controller in a Multi National Farma Company before marriage and is still working and maintaining a salary Account No.02811050054498 in HDFC Bank. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the documents relating to the income of the respondent. The marriage of the parties has been solemnized without any demand of dowry. After marriage the petitioner No.1 and the respondent were living together in Delhi separate from the family of petitioner. All streedhan, whatever it was, remained with the respondent and she had taken it back when she deserted the petitioner No.1. 4. It is further submitted that the application for interim maintenance has been filed after 1½ years of separation, which is time barred and liable to be dismissal on this ground alone. The learned appellate Court could not consider the fact that the appeal was without jurisdiction. The respondent has also filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 of CrPC MJC No.15/2013, which is pending before Second Additional Judge, Family Court and another case under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act with an application under section 24 of the same Act. Thus, the respondent has filed three different petitions for the same relief. At the same time she has also filed a criminal case under section 498A of IPC. Therefore, dismissal of the present petition is prayed for as not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have gone through the record. 7. There is no limitation is prescribed for filing any application for getting monetary relief from the Court under the Act. 8. Therefore, dismissal of the present petition is prayed for as not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have gone through the record. 7. There is no limitation is prescribed for filing any application for getting monetary relief from the Court under the Act. 8. As per the provisions under section 26 of the Act, any monetary relief available under section 20 may also be sought in any legal proceedings before a civil Court, Family Court or a criminal Court and such relief may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal Court. 9. The petitioner did not disclose his salary before the trial Court but at the same time he did not dispute that he is a well qualified engineer and working as Server Support Engineer in Conversis India Services Private Ltd., Gudgaon. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent is maintaining a salary account, but has not filed any documents to show that any sum (salary) is being deposited in the said account. 10. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has considered the factum of income of the petitioner and dependency of the respondent so also the fact that it is nowhere brought on record that the respondent had left the house without any rhyme or reason. Both the Courts below have also considered the other issues raised by the petitioners and the conclusions are based on the evidence available on record. Considering the financial and social status of the parties, the learned first appellate Court has awarded the amount, which, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, seems to be just and proper. I do not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion of the learned first appellate Court. Further, in my view, the husband cannot forestall the claim of maintenance by making mere suggestion that he is willing to keep the respondent with him when there is nothing to show that he is serious in this regard. 11. I do not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion of the learned first appellate Court. Further, in my view, the husband cannot forestall the claim of maintenance by making mere suggestion that he is willing to keep the respondent with him when there is nothing to show that he is serious in this regard. 11. As far as the direction regarding furnishing security bond in respect of Streedhan is concerned, the first appellate Court has not changed the direction of the trial Court, rather it has made clear that in place of furnishing security bond by all three respondents in the sum of Rs.5-5 lacs each, it is directed that the petitioner No.1 alone will furnish the security bond for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, no need to interfere with this direction also. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial Court. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed as such.