Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 842 (JK)

Sagar Chand v. Chanchla Devi

2017-09-13

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 03.09.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur, whereby order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Majalta, has been upheld. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the complainant had made contradicting statements in the complaint, in the sarsari statement and while appearing as witness in the witness box. In the complaint on 25.06.2013 she has stated that marriage took place between the parties in her village Chorh Panjian in Tehsil Ramnagar. After marriage, he asked her to sell her cattle. Within one year cattle were sold and she asked him to take her to Gurha Kalyal, the village of the petitioner which he refused and asked her that both would reside at Chorh Panjian. In the sarsari statement on 25.06.2013 the complainant has not disclosed the place of marriage but stated that the petitioner resided with her for two years at Chorh Panjian and thereafter left back without informing her. In the witness box before the trial Court the complainant stated that marriage took place in Billawar Mandir and afterwards they both stayed in a rented house at Billawar for 6 years. In 2012 he gave her beating and took her to her village Chorh Panjian. Then she sold her cattle and money was taken by the petitioner who after few days left Chorh Panjian. The complainant has made contradicting statements regarding the place and factum of marriage, which confirms the stand of petitioner that marriage never took place. Regarding staying together of parties, further she has made contradicting statements. 3. It is further stated that the cattle story is apparently false. In the complaint she said that cattle were sold within one year after marriage and in the witness box she states about selling of cattle in 2012. The contradictions are of very serious nature which indicate that the complainant has not stuck to her statement, she has changed her statement on basic truth at different times and stages of trial. 4. It is also stated that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the complainant and they also have made contradicting statements. Kamal Singh, son-in-law of the complainant, has said that he did not see the petitioner after his marriage where he usually visits. His mother-in-law resides in her house at Chorh Panjian. 4. It is also stated that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the complainant and they also have made contradicting statements. Kamal Singh, son-in-law of the complainant, has said that he did not see the petitioner after his marriage where he usually visits. His mother-in-law resides in her house at Chorh Panjian. Mangu Ram, complainant’s brother has stated that he was present at the time of marriage. There was no photographer to take photographs. Pandit and Pujari were also there. The complainant has asserted in her statement that there was photographer. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. 6. From the perusal of order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Majalta, it appears that respondent has filed a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for grant of maintenance. The petitioner herein has appeared before JMIC Majalata and filed objections. Where-after, parties produced their evidence and Court below after appreciating all the evidence on record, allowed the petition and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of petition. 7. Petitioner herein aggrieved of the order of learned JMIC Majalata, filed a Revision Petition before Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur on 11.03.2015. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur, vide order dated 03.09.2015 upheld the order of JMIC Majalta. 8. I have considered the grounds mentioned in the petition and have also gone through the orders of Court below and record. 9. From the perusal of the records, it is evident that petitioner herein has not denied that the respondent is his wife. So admittedly, there has been a marriage between the parties solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The grounds taken in this petition have already been taken & appreciated by both the courts below in its right perspective. Once a marriage has been admitted, it becomes moral duty of husband to maintain his wife, even if husband is not working. The purpose of granting maintenance is to save claimant from vagrancy and destitution. 10. This Court while exercising its power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the evidence again and give different finding other than concurrent findings already recorded by the Courts below. There is no law point involved in the petition. 11. Hence, this petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.