Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 379 (HP)

Rahul Sharma v. Rajni Devi

2019-04-05

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 23.04.2018, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, vide which, application filed by the petitioner for conciliation of the dispute has been dismissed and in default to pay maintenance to the respondents, he has been sent to imprisonment for one month. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under: Petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2. A complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), i.e. Complaint No. 36/15, titled as Rajni Devi vs. Rahul Sharma, was filed by respondents against the petitioner alongwith an application under Section 23 of the Act, praying for interim maintenance. Learned Court ordered payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of wife and the minor child. 3. This order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of Cr.MMO No. 242 of 2017. Said petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 25.8.2017 in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, with the condition that in case the petitioner did not comply with the undertaking so given by him, then the parties will be at liberty to revive their respective cases. 4. It appears that as the petitioner did not comply with the terms of compromise, an application was filed by the respondents before the learned Court below for revival of the case filed under the Domestic Violence Act. 5. After the application stood filed by the wife for revival of the case, petitioner-husband also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Court below praying that wife be directed to join his company. 6. Learned Court below dismissed this application vide impugned order holding that the same was not maintainable in view of directions already issued by this Court (High Court) in its judgment supra. As the petitioner had failed to pay maintenance to the respondents, learned Court also sent him for imprisonment for one month. 7. Record demonstrates that even after 23.04.2018, opportunities were granted to the petitioner to pay maintenance, however, he failed to do so. As the petitioner had failed to pay maintenance to the respondents, learned Court also sent him for imprisonment for one month. 7. Record demonstrates that even after 23.04.2018, opportunities were granted to the petitioner to pay maintenance, however, he failed to do so. This is evident from orders dated 28.06.2018 and 26.7.2018 passed by learned Court below which are also appended with the petition. 8. Respondent No. 1 has submitted before the Court that she was willing to join the company of the petitioner in terms of the compromise having entered into between them but petitioner made no endeavour to take her back. She further submitted that in this background she filed the application for revival of her case in terms of the judgment passed by this Court. No maintenance has been paid by the petitioner to her or to the daughter (respondent No. 2) for the last 2-3 years. According to her, filing of application under Section 151 of CPC and praying for a direction that she be directed to join the company of the petitioner was nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings and also to delay the payment of maintenance to her and her minor daughter. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also respondent No. 1, who is present in person in the Court, this Court does not finds any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Court below. 10. During the course of arguments, no cogent explanation was given by learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why maintenance has not been paid by the petitioner to the respondents till date. It is evident from the record that even after the passing of the impugned order, apparently on the request of the present petitioner, further opportunities were granted to him to pay maintenance to the respondents, yet he did not abide by undertaking given by him before the learned Court below. 11. That being so, learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code allegedly moved for conciliation but apparently moved for delaying the case and has also rightly ordered the imprisonment of the petitioner as he has failed to pay the maintenance to the respondents. 11. That being so, learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code allegedly moved for conciliation but apparently moved for delaying the case and has also rightly ordered the imprisonment of the petitioner as he has failed to pay the maintenance to the respondents. In this factual matrix, this Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.