Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2738 (PNJ)

Hardip v. Suman & Another

2019-10-04

HARI PAL VERMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Hari Pal Verma, J. - CRM-30978-2019: 2. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for condonation of delay of 246 days filing the present revision petition. 3. The pleaded grounds seeking condonation of delay are that the petitioner is a poor, innocent and ignorant person, who was not aware of the limitation for filing a revision petition before this Court. However, it is settled law that poverty and ignorance of law are not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The judgment in the case of Mrs Saroj and others Vs. Sh. Baljeet Singh and another 2010(3) RCR(Civil) 929, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, whereby delay of 447 days in filing the appeal was condoned, is of no help to the petitioner, as in that case, the delay was condoned in an appeal against the award passed by Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, which is a beneficial legislation, whereas in the case in hand, the dispute is between family members and only interim maintenance has been awarded by the Family Court vide order dated 31.10.2018, which has been challenged by way of a revision petition. The proceedings in the case must have reached at an advance stage and must be on the verge of its culmination. Thus, the cited judgment has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. 5. CRR(F)-764 of 2019: 6. Even though the present case has been dismissed on limitation, but still this Court has heard the petitioner on merits as well. 7. Petitioner Hardip has filed the present revision petition impugning the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, whereby, on an application filed by the respondents for grant of interim maintenance, though learned Family Court has not held respondent No.1-wife entitled for maintenance, however, respondent No.2, who is daughter of the petitioner and respondent no.1 and residing with respondent no.1, has been held her entitled for interim maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. 8. Briefly stated, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 06.02.2013 and out of this wedlock, a daughter namely Varsha (respondent no.2) was born to them. 8,000/- per month. 8. Briefly stated, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 06.02.2013 and out of this wedlock, a daughter namely Varsha (respondent no.2) was born to them. However, the petitioner and his family members started harassing respondent no.1 for bringing insufficient dowry and gave beatings to respondent no.1. On 30.04.2016, the father of the petitioner also tried to outrage the modesty of respondent no.1. However, when the matter was reported to the Women Cell, the petitioner and his family members felt sorry for their conduct and gave an assurance not to harass respondent no.1 in future. But still, their behaviour did not change. On 10.01.2018, respondent no.1 was turned out of her matrimonial home after giving beatings to her. Since then, respondent no.1 started residing separately at her parental house along with her daughter - respondent no.2, as she had no source of income. Accordingly, respondents filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance. In the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, an application was filed by the respondents to grant interim maintenance to them. 9. As per the respondents, the petitioner has 12 acres of agricultural land and he is doing private work also and in this manner, he is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The petitioner denied the allegations so levelled in the application and rather, alleged that respondent no.1 is a short tempered and quarrelsome lady. She never performed her household work properly and for this reason, the petitioner and his father had to do the entire household work. She had never shown any respect to the petitioner and his family members and even avoided making physical relations with the petitioner. The respondent No.1 herself left her matrimonial home. The petitioner has even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On 30.04.2016, at about 11:30 PM, respondent No. 1 called some person from her parental home, who gave beatings to the petitioner and his family members, regarding which, an FIR No. 73 dated 01.05.2016 under Sections 323, 34, 452, 506 IPC was got registered at Police Station Bhawani Khera. However, the matter was got compromised in that FIR. Respondent No.1 is a Graduate and doing tuition work and thus, earning sufficiently. 10. However, the Family Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 has awarded interim maintenance to respondent no.2, which is on higher side. 11. However, the matter was got compromised in that FIR. Respondent No.1 is a Graduate and doing tuition work and thus, earning sufficiently. 10. However, the Family Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 has awarded interim maintenance to respondent no.2, which is on higher side. 11. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an unemployed person and not earning anything. He is not owner of 12 acres of agricultural land, as alleged by respondent No. 1. It is on account of the indecent behaviour of respondent No. 1, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which is pending before the Family Court. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 so as to take the custody of his daughter Varsha (respondent no.2), which is pending before the trial Court. The Family Court without taking into consideration the statements of the parties, the proof of income of the petitioner and the evidence so laid, has granted interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 @ Rs. 8000/- per month, despite the fact that the petitioner is unemployed and there is no guarantee that he will get work for all 30 days in a month. The petitioner is required to maintain his father who is an old person and is also required to arrange for his medicines and other daily requirements. The petitioner is a middle pass whereas respondent No. 1 is a Graduate. She is giving tuitions and earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the maintenance so awarded to respondent No. 2 is on higher side. 13.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. The relationship between the parties as well as their having a daughter Varsha (respondent no.2) is not in dispute. The Family Court has not awarded any maintenance to respondent No. 1-wife. However interim maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month has been awarded to respondent No.2- daughter, from the date of the order dated 31.10.2018. While awarding maintenance, the Family Court has noticed that the petitioner has denied having income, as alleged by respondent No.1, but at the same time, he has failed to disclose his monthly income in the reply filed by him. 8,000/- per month has been awarded to respondent No.2- daughter, from the date of the order dated 31.10.2018. While awarding maintenance, the Family Court has noticed that the petitioner has denied having income, as alleged by respondent No.1, but at the same time, he has failed to disclose his monthly income in the reply filed by him. In absence of any specific averment as regards his own income, learned Family Court has drawn an inference that the petitioner is an able-bodied person and must be earning minimum wages apart from being an owner of 12 acres of land and thus, quantified interim maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month, which is payable to none else but his own daughter-respondent No.2 is not higher and the same is not on higher side. 15. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order does not require any interference, particularly when the awarded maintenance is interim in nature. 16. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.