Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 298 (PNJ)

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Haryana

2018-01-22

A.B.CHAUDHARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. A. B. Chaudhari, J. (Oral):- The petitioner has filed fourth petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No.710 dated 19.11.2015 registered under Sections 21(B), 27(A)-61-85 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 18(A) & 18(C) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 3. This Court had ordered release of the petitioner on regular bail vide order dated 10.11.2017 passed in CRM-M-38285-2017 by imposing following condition along with other conditions: “(iv) The petitioner shall report to the police station concerned on every Monday, Wednesday and Sunday from 11.00am to 4.00pm in addition to appearing before the trial Court on the dates fixed there. The police shall keep surveillance on the petitioner.” 4. The petitioner, however, did not appear before the police station in terms of the aforesaid order on 29.11.2017, 03.12.2017, 04.12.2017 and 06.12.2017 and as such the report was made by the concerned police station with the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court passed the order canceling the bail in view of the admitted position of failing in complying with the above condition. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken in custody on 02.01.2018. 5. The petitioner has given a reason that on those dates he was under treatment in the hospital of Dr. S. C. Manchanda at Sirsa. Learned counsel has placed on record certificate (Annexure P- 3) in support of his submission. Obviously, the bare reading of certificate (Annexure P-3) shows that there is no detail about the illness for which the petitioner was suffering but it is mentioned that he was advised rest for ten days i.e. from 28.11.2017 to 07.12.2017. 6. It is rightly contended by learned State counsel that it is not possible to believe the said certificate. 7. Be that as it may. In my opinion since the petitioner did attend the police station before that period of absence, there is no need to continue his detention in jail and one more chance is required to be given to him to be at liberty. 8. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner by way of last chance. Hence, I make the following order: ORDER (i) CRL. MISC.No.M-742 OF 2018 is allowed, by way of last chance. (ii) Bail to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. 8. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner by way of last chance. Hence, I make the following order: ORDER (i) CRL. MISC.No.M-742 OF 2018 is allowed, by way of last chance. (ii) Bail to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. (iii) The condition No. (iv) is further modified. Now, the petitioner shall report to the police station concerned on every Sunday from 11.00am to 4.00pm in addition to appearing before the trial Court on the dates fixed there. (iv) The petitioner shall not violate any conditions imposed in earlier bail order. (v) In case of violation of the above condition as well as conditions imposed in earlier bail order, on the part of the petitioner, the liberty is reserved in favour of the State to apply for cancellation of bail. —————————— her Income Tax Returns. (Para 6) JUDGMENT Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.:- Civil miscellaneous application is allowed. Rejoinder to the reply to application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is permitted to be taken on record. CMM-108-2015 2. This order shall dispose of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.60,000/- per month pendente lite for maintenance of the applicant-appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant claimed that the respondent is working as Associate Project Manager in M/s Cognizant Market RX, Gurgaon and is drawing a salary approximately Rs. 1,20,000/- per month besides doing business with M/s Amway and earning a commission of approximately Rs. 60,000/- per month. The applicant claims that she is unemployed on the date of application. 4. In proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act during the pendency of the petition filed before the Family Court, Faridabad, she was earning Rs. 45,000/- per month but taking into consideration the standard of living and earning of the respondent-husband, she had been granted maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. 5. The respondent-husband has filed reply admitting the earnings but it has been vaguely averred that applicant-wife is working as an Editor in some publication house and earning handsome amount. It is urged by counsel for the respondent that she is earning much more than Rs. 45,000/- per month and she has wrongly stated that she is unemployed. 5. The respondent-husband has filed reply admitting the earnings but it has been vaguely averred that applicant-wife is working as an Editor in some publication house and earning handsome amount. It is urged by counsel for the respondent that she is earning much more than Rs. 45,000/- per month and she has wrongly stated that she is unemployed. Counsel for the respondent has also argued that on account of the status of the appellant on the date of marriage being married she would not be entitled to any maintenance pendente lite. 6. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not find any force in the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the respondent. The wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in all the proceedings arising out of the Hindu Marriage Act. The applicant-appellant is thus entitled to the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses as per provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Taking into consideration the fact that in year 2012 the appellant had been granted maintenance pandente lite at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month but on account of his liabilities in the shape of EMIs for repayment of the car and the house loan the respondent has expressed inability to pay any amount. 7. We have taken into consideration all the circumstances. On asking of the court, it has been informed that the applicant is educated having done Post Graduation in the subject of English. But the circumstances that she is capable of earning and is doing some constructive work for earning will not disentitle her for maintenance pendente lite as the said factor will not ipso facto disentitle her for the maintenance pendente lite as she has to be maintained commensurate with the status and earnings of the husband. Keeping in mind that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been awarded to the wife vide order dated 5.5.2012, five years back, the same will have to be enhanced, taking into consideration the escalating prices, even if it is presumed that she is capable of earning and a meager amount is indicated in her Income Tax Returns, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite is considered to be reasonable with effect from the date of the application i.e. April 2015. Ordered accordingly. 25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite is considered to be reasonable with effect from the date of the application i.e. April 2015. Ordered accordingly. She is also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- already paid as litigation expenses will be deductible from the litigation expenses, as assessed by this Court. 8. The entire arrears of maintenance would be paid on 25.4.2018 as calculated till 30.4.2018. 9. It is made clear that if any amount for any month has been paid @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in proceedings before the Family Court, the said amount will be deductible from the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant. 10. It is not out of place to mention here that an attempt has been made for reconciliation. The appellant is ready to accept the order of the lower Court in case she is given a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as permanent alimony by the respondent. The said offer can be considered by the respondent on or before the next date of hearing.