Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1983 (RAJ)

Dinesh Kumar Sargara v. Shobha Chouhan

2018-09-27

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Aggrieved by common order dated 03.09.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali, Dinesh Kumar and others have preferred Revision Petition No. 1055/2012 and Smt. Shobha Chouhan has preferred Revision Petition No. 910/2012. Dinesh Kumar and his family members have challenged the order vide which Rs. 4,000/- each per month has been awarded as maintenance to his two children (Daughter & Son) and Rs. 1,000/- per month has been awarded as rent to Shobha Chouhan. Shobha Chouhan has preferred Revision Petition No. 910/2012 for enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded to her two children. 2. It is contended by Mr. Salman Agha counsel for Dinesh Kumar and others that domestic violence was not established hence, the Court was not competent to pass any order with regard to maintenance. He has placed reliance on Sri Abhijit Saha & Ors. vs. Smt. Sangita Saha, C.R.R. No. 3104/2014, decided by Calcutta High Court on 17.09.2015. 3. It is further contended by Mr. Salman Agha that Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Shobha Chouhan, both are in Government employment, hence, maintenance should have been shared by parents and awarding of maintenance Rs. 4,000/- per month each for two children against Dinesh Kumar is bad in law. In this regard, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Padmja Sharma vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 1398 wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that working wife is under obligation to contribute in maintenance of children along with her husband. 4. It is also contended that the Appellate Court while rejecting appeal of Shobha Chouhan has held that income of husband and wife is almost same. Husband has other social obligations and on this count appeal preferred by Shobha Chouhan for enhancement of maintenance amount was dismissed. 5. Counsel Mr. D.S. Udawat appearing for Smt. Shobha Chouhan has opposed the Revision Petition No. 1055/2012 preferred by Dinesh Kumar. His contention is that before the Appellate Court, income proof of petitioner -Dinesh Kumar was submitted. Dinesh Kumar is a Central Government Employee working with Railways as Travelling Ticket Examiner (T.T.E.) and his income is much more than Smt. Shobha Chouhan, who is a Teacher in Government School. 6. His contention is that before the Appellate Court, income proof of petitioner -Dinesh Kumar was submitted. Dinesh Kumar is a Central Government Employee working with Railways as Travelling Ticket Examiner (T.T.E.) and his income is much more than Smt. Shobha Chouhan, who is a Teacher in Government School. 6. It is also contended that the amount awarded for two children, in the present circumstances when cost of index (living cost) has arisen, is meagre and needs to be enhanced. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. With regard to argument of counsel Mr. Salman Agha, counsel appearing for petitioners - Dinesh Kumar that domestic violence has not taken place and the Court below was not entitled to pass an order, suffice it to say that Smt. Shobha Chouhan was examined before the Court, wherein she mentioned that she had filed a case against her husband and her husband gave Ex. P/7 to the Station House Officer (SHO), wherein he mentioned that henceforth he will not abuse his wife, he would not mentally harass her and would not beat her wife, that he will maintain his wife and two children and that he would not consumer liquor. This document was submitted to the Police on 14.12.2009 and the reason for submitting this document before the Police was that a complainant under Section 107, 116(3) and 151 Cr.P.C. was filed by Gajendra Kumar, brother of Smt. Shobha Chouhan wherein, allegations were levelled against Dinesh Kumar. 9. Contention of counsel for Dinesh Kumar that Dinesh Kumar under pressure signed the letter, cannot be accepted, as he had not complained about the letter being got signed by him under threat and it is only after the present application was filed for domestic violence that Dinesh Kumar set-up a defence that he had signed the document under threat. There was ample evidence before the Court below to come to conclusion that domestic violence has been committed with Smt. Shobha Chouhan and consequently, the judgment cited by counsel for Dinesh Kumar in the case of Abhijit Saha & Ors. (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case. 10. With regard to sharing of maintenance amount, it is apparent that both the parents are employed in Government service. Dinesh Kumar is employed with Railways as TTE whereas Smt. Shobha Chouhan is a Government Teacher. (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case. 10. With regard to sharing of maintenance amount, it is apparent that both the parents are employed in Government service. Dinesh Kumar is employed with Railways as TTE whereas Smt. Shobha Chouhan is a Government Teacher. No document was produced by Smt. Shobha Chouhan with regard to her income. 11. There may be a marginal difference in the income of a TTE and a Government Teacher and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Padmja Sharma (supra), Smt. Shobha Choudhary is also required to share the expenses of maintenance awarded to her two children. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat has discussed in his order dated 16.04.2012 the extent of expenses of two children and has awarded Rs. 4,000/- each for two children. He has not directed Smt. Shobha Chouhan (wife) to share the expenses. 12. In view of the fact that both the parents are working as Government employees and earning handsome money, there is no question of enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded for two children. However, the amount is required to be shared by wife - Smt. Shobha Chouhan as well. Hence, this Court deems it proper to reduce the amount payable by husband - Dinesh Kumar from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month per children; and the rest of the amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month per children would be shared by wife - Smt. Shobha Chouhan. 13. In view of the same, Revision Petition No. 910/2012 preferred by Smt. Shobha Chouhan deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected; and Revision Petition No. 1055/2012 preferred by Dinesh Kumar deserves to be and is hereby partly allowed.