Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 885 (RAJ)

PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-04-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Pawan Kumar has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in revision, affirming the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Misc. Case No.66/2002 granting maintenance to the respondents Smt. Sarla, being the wife and son of the petitioner and Kumari Mamta, his daughter (who is not a party respondent in the instant proceedings). 2. On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 10.01.2018, this Court had directed the learned counsel to keep their respective parties present in the Court so as to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. The respondent Smt. Sarla was present in the Court at the time of arguments but, the petitioner has failed to appear. Thus, the final arguments were heard on merits. 3. Learned counsel Shri Sandhu representing the petitioner vehemently urged that as a matter of fact , the respondent Smt. Sarla has intentionally abandoned the matrimonial home without any justification and thus, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever from the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the respondent No.3 Bhawani Shankar, being the son of the petitioner and Smt. Sarla, has attained majority and thus, he is not entitled to claim any maintenance whatsoever. He further urged that in the statement of Smt. Sarla recorded by the learned Magistrate, she has admitted that she did not desire to go and live in her matrimonial home. He further urged that the criminal case lodged by the respondent Smt. Sarla against the petitioner and his family members for the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 120B IPC resulted into their acquittal vide judgment dated 14.09.2006. Likewise, the divorce petition filed by Smt. Sarla against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Churu vide judgment dated 22.02.2008. He further pointed out that in her statement recorded in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, registered in the court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu, Smt. Sarla admitted that she used to work as a teacher and was earning livelihood in this manner. On these grounds, learned counsel Shri Sandhu urged that the orders passed by the courts below are absolutely illegal and perverse and deserve to be set aside. On these grounds, learned counsel Shri Sandhu urged that the orders passed by the courts below are absolutely illegal and perverse and deserve to be set aside. Per contra, Shri Pritam Solanki learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently urged that the petitioner started harassing Smt Sarla soon after their marriage. Unwarranted fetters were put on her freedom. She as well as her children were not provided food or means of sustenance. The prior proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and those under Sections 498A and 406 IPC were undertaken on genuine grounds but the petitioner got the same terminated through compromise after giving false assurances. However, he continued his cruel behavior with the respondents whereupon, fresh proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came to be lodged. That Smt Sarla categorically denied having any source of sustained livelihood/ income. On these grounds, he craved dismissal of the petition. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondents were turned out by the petitioner from the matrimonial house way back in the year 2002 and since then, they are living in virtual dereliction. Even though, the order of maintenance was passed way back in the year 2011 the petitioner has not paid a single penny to his wife and children. Whilst entertaining the instant misc. petition, this Court was compelled to direct, vide order dated 17.01.2014, that the petitioner shall clear off the maintenance dues payable to the children. Only under compulsion of the said order did the petitioner made payment of a sum of Rs.87, 000/- to his two minor children. However, till date, not a single penny of maintenance has been paid to the wife. During his evidence, the petitioner claimed that Sarla used to earn livelihood by doing stitching jobs, etc. But now, a plea has been taken that she is having substantial earning by working in a private school. However, on perusal of the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court, it is apparent that during cross-examination of Sarla in the present proceedings, no suggestion was given to her regarding she having any significant source of income by teaching in any private school. 6. However, on perusal of the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court, it is apparent that during cross-examination of Sarla in the present proceedings, no suggestion was given to her regarding she having any significant source of income by teaching in any private school. 6. So far as the rejection of the divorce petition and the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case is concerned, those decisions cannot have any significant bearing on fate of the present application because legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife has no correlation with his exhoneration in proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Likewise, mere rejection of the divorce petition is also not relevant for deciding the present issue inasmuch as, the only finding given in the judgment dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu is that the respondent failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against the petitioner. However, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent is forced to live out of the matrimonial home with her children for the last more than 15 years and the petitioner has not provided any subsistence to them. Even the maintenance awarded to the children by the trial court was honoured and paid only after this Court affirmatively directed the petitioner to do so. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the applicants i.e. respondent being the petitioner's wife Smt. Sarla, son Bhawani Shankar (till he attained majority) and daughter Kumari Mamtesh (till she is married), are entitled to claim and receive maintenance from the petitioner. I find no shortcoming, either factual or legal, in the impugned orders dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in revision affirming the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, so as to cause interference therein while exercising inherent powers of this Court conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. As a consequence of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that the order of maintenance qua the respondent Bhanwani Shankar shall remain effective only till the date of his attaining the majority. Furthermore, Kumari Mamtesh (though not a party respondent in these proceedings) will be entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner till she is married. 10. petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that the order of maintenance qua the respondent Bhanwani Shankar shall remain effective only till the date of his attaining the majority. Furthermore, Kumari Mamtesh (though not a party respondent in these proceedings) will be entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner till she is married. 10. With these observations and directions, the instant misc. petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.