Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1906 (HP)

Ruma Devi v. Bhillo Ram

2019-12-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, in Cr. Appeal No.793 of 2018, whereby he partly allowed the appeal maintained by the respondent against the order dated 13.6.2018, passed by the learned Court below. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ''aggrieved person'') is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and custom and they have started living together, as husband and wife. After the marriage, the petitioner discharged her matrimonial obligations towards the respondent and three children were born out of the said wedlock. The relation between the petitioner and respondent never remained cordial soon after the marriage. The respondent never cared for emotions, liking and disliking of the aggrieved person and he treated the respondent as an article. The respondent used to remain absent from his house for number of days, when the petitioner-aggrieved person tried to inquire from him about his absence from home for days together, he used to give beatings to the petitioner without any reasonable cause. After the birth of third child, behaviour of the respondent became more cruel and he started giving merciless beatings to her. The respondent also started depriving her as well as the children of maintenance and other basic necessities of life. In the month of March, 2014, Smt. Shivo, asked the petitioner to vacate her house and threatened her with dire consequences that the petitioner claimed maintenance on the ground that the respondent is a Retired teacher and getting pension of Rs. 20,000/- per month and is also having two house and landed property from which, he is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. The respondent has contested and resisted the petition by filing reply taking preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel, distortion of material facts. On merits, the respondent has admitted that the relationship between the petitioner remained discordial. 20,000/- per month and is also having two house and landed property from which, he is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. The respondent has contested and resisted the petition by filing reply taking preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel, distortion of material facts. On merits, the respondent has admitted that the relationship between the petitioner remained discordial. The respondent has denied the allegations that he developed illicit relations with Smt. Shivo and has stated that she is his legally wedded wife and his marriage with her was solemnized with the permission and consent of the petitioner-aggrieved person. The respondent has claimed that she has also handed over substantial portion of land to the petitioneraggrieved person and she is deriving income therefrom. The respondent has rightly and legally appointed Smt. Shivo for receiving the service benefits, as she is a family member and is fully competent for such nomination. The respondent has admitted that he has retired as a teacher, but all other averments qua his monthly income have been denied. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-aggrieved person has argued that the learned lower Appellate Court without appreciating the fact that the respondenthusband is getting pension, which is around about Rs. 18,000/- per month, as per the information received under the Right to Information Act and is also having agricultural land was required to grant maintenance at least to the tune of Rs. 6000/- per month, but the maintenance has been reduced from Rs. 5000/-to Rs. 2500/- per month. He has further argued that the liability of the respondenthusband is only to the petitioner-aggrieved person and none else, as the children are now grown up. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently argued that pension of the respondent-husband is stopped, on an application moved by the present petitioner-aggrieved person and in these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Court below is just and reasoned. He has further argued that the respondent-husband has to support his son, who is studying in Punjab, in the hostel and other son is maintained by the petitioner-aggrieved person and in these circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that the respondent-husband has to support his son, who is studying in Punjab, in the hostel and other son is maintained by the petitioner-aggrieved person and in these circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-aggrieved person has argued that at this stage, the petitioner-aggrieved person is only dependent upon the respondent-husband, as she is not in a position to do anything and she is entitled for grant of half share from the pension of the respondent-husband, as the respondent-husband is still in a position to do something. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 8. In order to substantiate her case, PW-1, Ruma Devi, has admitted that the service benefits/pension of the respondent has been stopped by the Government on an application given by her. She has also proved on record jamabandies Ex.PA and Ex.PB, which shows that the respondent is owner-in-possession of the land situated at Mauza Bhoga and Mauza Dugali. PW-2, Bhindro Devi, deposed that petitioner is her sister-in-law. She has stated that in the year 1986, the respondent has beaten the petitioner and thereafter, her sister-in-law Bimla, had brought her back to the house. She has further stated that Birbal, who is brother of the petitioner stated that he will not send the petitioner to the respondent''s house and thereafter, the petitioner stayed at her parent''s house for thirty years. She has stated that during the entire time, the respondent came to the village thrice, but never visited to the house of petitioner. She has stated that the petitioner maintained herself by doing household chores. She has further stated that the respondent has kept another lady at his house from whom he has three children. She stated that she does not know the name of that lady and stated that the respondent has retired as a teacher and has also landed property in his name. RW-2, Piar Singh, stated that the respondent never refused to maintain or gave beatings to the petitioner and also did not force her out of the house. He has stated that three children were born out of their marriage and respondent took care of the upbringing, education and marriages of the children. RW-2, Piar Singh, stated that the respondent never refused to maintain or gave beatings to the petitioner and also did not force her out of the house. He has stated that three children were born out of their marriage and respondent took care of the upbringing, education and marriages of the children. He has stated that when elder son of the respondent was two years old, the petitioner left his house and went to her parent''s house. RW-3, Harish Kumar, stated that his mother deserted him, when he was five years old and did not return for twenty two years. He stated that he pursued his mother to come and live with him. He has stated that he is not aware as to why his mother had left the house twenty two years ago. He has stated that his mother lives with him at the house of Dugli, whereas his father lives at the house at Bhadwa. He stated that his father never refused to pay maintenance to his mother and also never misbehaved with his wife. 9. In the case in hand, the relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent and subsequent birth of three children from the wedlock has not been denied. The aggrieved person has claimed that the respondent has subjected her to domestic violence by driving her out of the house, by refusing to maintain her and by developing an illicit relationship with Smt. Shivo. Although, in his reply, the respondent has claimed that he had not developed an illicit relationship with Smt. Shivo, but had rather married her and that too with the permission and consent of the aggrieved person, this averment of the respondent prove false upon appreciation of evidence, as son of the aggrieved person and respondent, who appeared before the learned Court below to support the respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that his father has not remarried. RW-2, Piar Singh, has also admitted in his cross-examination that Smt. Shivo and respondent did not solemnize a marriage and she was simply brought to the house. The respondent has taken the plea that he had to solemnize a second marriage because the aggrieved person herself had left the matrimonial house, but the respondent has not been able to explain or prove if any serious efforts were made by him to bring back the aggrieved person. The respondent has taken the plea that he had to solemnize a second marriage because the aggrieved person herself had left the matrimonial house, but the respondent has not been able to explain or prove if any serious efforts were made by him to bring back the aggrieved person. AW-2, Bindro Devi, has stated that the aggrieved person was beaten by the respondent in the year 1986 and when she went to see her, she saw internal injury marks all over her body. She has also stated that during the period of thirty years, respondent visited the village on three occasions and then also did not go to the aggrieved person''s house. The respondent has also alleged that it is the aggrieved person, who has driven the respondent out of the house and does not let him enter the house, but as per the testimony of RW-3 Harish Kumar, the aggrieved person stayed at her matrimonial house for a period of twenty two years and agreed to stay at the respondent''s house at Dugli alongwith her son only after he persuaded her. The respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that upon superannuation, he received rupees 5-6 lakh, but he did not pay any money to the aggrieved person out of the said amount. So far as the income of the respondent, it has to be pointed out that the respondent has stated that he is not receiving his pension as the aggrieved person has filed a case against him, but he is entitled to a pension of rupees 8-10 thousand per month. It also becomes clear from the record that the respondent is owner of two house alongwith land. The aggrieved person has further proved this fact that by placing on record the jamabandis Ex.PA and Ex.PB, which shows that the respondent has also immovable property in his name. Therefore, it can be safely held that the respondent has a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- from all his sources. On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that being a Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Choli, aggrieved person earns more money than him, but no document or evidence in this regard has been placed on record. 10. As per the information received under the Right to Information Act, as per the petitioner-aggrieved person, the respondent-husband is getting pension of Rs. 20,000/- per month . 10. As per the information received under the Right to Information Act, as per the petitioner-aggrieved person, the respondent-husband is getting pension of Rs. 20,000/- per month . The respondent has also got gratuity of Rs. 3,91,608/- and is having agricultural land. The petitioner is an old lady unable to maintain herself and in these circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled for the monetary relief to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month and she should continue to stay in the house at Dugli alongwith her son and the respondent is restrained from giving any type of mental and physical cruelty to the aggrieved personpetitioner. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Resultantly, the judgment, dated 27.9.2018, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is quashed and set aside and order, dated 13.6.2018, passed by the learned Court below is affirmed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.