Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 358 (HP)

Jalpu Ram v. Uttami Devi

2017-04-17

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”) for setting aside the order dated 19.01.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., in CRPC No. 2/160/15, whereby interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month was awarded in favour of Smt. Uttami Devi. 2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that Smt. Uttami Devi, who was the petitioner before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the petitioner”) has filed the petition against Sh. Jalpu Ram, who was the respondent before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the respondent”), under Section 125 Cr.PC for grant of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month, wherein it was alleged by the petitioner that she is divorced wife of the respondent and marriage between the parties was solemnized about 26 years ago, as per local customs of the area and out of the said marriage a male child was born out. The petitioner and respondent resided together as husband and wife for many years, with the passage of time, the relation between the parties become strained, as the respondent started giving beatings to the petitioner, due to which, divorce took place between the parties and the petitioner started residing in the house of her parents. It is further alleged by the petitioner that at the time of divorce no maintenance was given to her, further she has no source of income, whereas the respondent is having landed property, orchards and hotels in Manali from where he is having very good income. Hence the petitioner prayed for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 3. Respondent, by filing reply to the petition denied that the petitioner is his divorced wife and as per his version, no marriage was ever solemnized between them. He further averred that the petitioner developed friendly relation with the respondent and due to such relationship a male child was born. Moreover, the respondent is having a legally wedded wife and he was never lived with the petitioner as husband, thus he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. He further averred that the petitioner developed friendly relation with the respondent and due to such relationship a male child was born. Moreover, the respondent is having a legally wedded wife and he was never lived with the petitioner as husband, thus he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner (herein) has argued that the present is a fit case where this Court can set aside the order passed by the learned Court below and allowed the present petition. 6. Heard. After going through the record of the case, it is clear that the petitioner/wife has prime facie proved before the learned Court below that she is a divorced wife of the respondent and the respondent is denying maintenance to her. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the petitioner/wife is not his wife, however the respondent was having relations with the petitioner and out of their friendly relations, one male child was also born. 7. The contention of the petitioner/wife that she is a divorced wife of the respondent is corroborated from the copy of agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent, in presence of Gram Panchayat Manali on 11.04.1993, which clearly shows that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the past. The date of their marriage is also specifically mentioned in the agreement as 13.07.1991. It has also come on record that out of their union a male child was born. 8. Now coming to the grant of interim maintenance, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner/wife has re-married after her divorce with the respondent. Thus, the view taken by the learned Court below to award interim maintenance to the petitioner/wife is correct and as per law. The facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, this Court has also given its due consideration to the quantum of interim maintenance. It has come on record that annual earnings of the respondent is Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac), so the interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred), as awarded by the learned Court below in favour of the petitioner/wife, cannot said to be excessive at all. 9. It has come on record that annual earnings of the respondent is Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac), so the interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred), as awarded by the learned Court below in favour of the petitioner/wife, cannot said to be excessive at all. 9. In these circumstances, I find this case not to be a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code to set aside the well reasoned order of the learned Court below, as the same is passed by the learned Court below after going through the material on record and appreciating the same to its true perspective and in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition, the same deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed of.