Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 479 (HP)

Ajay Sharma v. Shruti Sharma

2019-04-26

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 26.12.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P., in case titled as Shruti Sharma Vs. Ajay Sharma, vide which in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an application stood filed under Section 23 (2) of the Act was allowed by learned Court below directing the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance, as also the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, District Una, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2018 dated 19.6.2018, vide which the appeal filed by present petitioner against the order passed by learned trial Court stood dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that respondent-wife, herein, has filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner-husband, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. Along with this petition, an application under Section 23 (2) of the Act was filed seeking ad-interim maintenance. Learned trial Court taking into consideration the fact that husband was earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month directed him to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife. Said order, in appeal, has been upheld by learned appellate Court. 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition, assailing the said order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as also the record appended with the petition. 5. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the contention of the wife was that the her husband was an educated person, who after doing his MBA was serving in the Accounts Department at Syntax Company at Ludhiana and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The petition stood filed on account of maltreatment and misbehaviour which was met to the wife by her husband and other relatives. Husband denied before the learned trial Court that he was either engaged with Syntax Company at Ludhiana or was earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. The petition stood filed on account of maltreatment and misbehaviour which was met to the wife by her husband and other relatives. Husband denied before the learned trial Court that he was either engaged with Syntax Company at Ludhiana or was earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. Learned trial Court while allowing the application filed under Section 23 (2) of the Act held that nothing was produced on record by the husband to substantiate that he was either not gainfully employeed with the Company and what his actual income was. Learned trial Court held that even otherwise, as the relationship of wife and husband was not disputed, therefore, also husband was morally and legally obliged to maintain his wife. 6. In appeal, learned appellate Court while upholding the said judgment of the learned trial Court held, as was borne out from the stand of the husband itself, that he was working as a part time assistant accountant, as per his own admission, it could not be said that an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was unreasonable as the husband was settled at Ludhiana where there were sufficient opportunities for such like professionals. It held that there were sufficient avenues with the husband to earn his livelihood. 7. In my considered view, the findings returned by both learned Court below are reasonable findings which stand returned by learned Courts below on the basis of the pleadings which were placed before the said Courts by the respective parties. Even before this Court the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner who has done his Master’s degree in Business Administration presently is gainfully employeed at Ludhiana. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that presently as the mother of the petitioner is suffering from cancer, therefore, he is not in a position to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/-. In my considered view, on this count the relief which has been granted in favour of the respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner. There is no perversity with the findings returned by learned Courts below whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance. There is no perversity with the findings returned by learned Courts below whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The amount so arrived at by learned both Courts below is a reasonable amount, as in todays world, it cannot be said that an amount of Rs.4,000/- for monthly maintenance of wife is on the higher side. In view of observations made hereinabove, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.