Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 946 (HP)

Mohinder Guer v. Reena Kumari

2019-07-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner, who was the respondent before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 30.11.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2012, whereby the revision filed by the respondents, who were petitioners before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners") was allowed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be encapsulated as under: The petitioners maintained a petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the respondent in the Court of lowest rung. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1, Smt. Reena Kumari, is wife of the respondent and petitioners No. 2 and 3, Sagun and Suraj are daughter and son of the respondent. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 27.01.2004 and petitioners No. 2 and 3 were born out of the wedlock. The petitioners alleged that the respondent forcibly took petitioner No. 3 from the custody of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is residing with petitioner No. 1. It is further alleged that the family of the respondent started maltreating petitioner No. 1 and she was often given beatings and was also denied food, raiment and other basic necessities. The respondent leveled allegations of unchastity on petitioner No. 1. Ultimately, due to the coercive and intolerable behaviour of the respondent and his family members petitioner No. 1 left her matrimonial home on 26.09.2008 and since then she is residing in her parental house. It was also alleged that the respondent had refused to maintain the petitioners without any cause and justification. As per petitioner No. 1, the respondent is doing the business of hardware shop and his income is in lakhs. Thus, the petitioners sought monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000/- to each of them. The petitioners also alleged that they are poor persons having no source of income. The learned Trial Court partly allowed the petition and monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- was granted to petitioner No. 2 (minor daughter) and no maintenance was granted to petitioner No. 1, as she was held to be receiving all necessities of her life, including maintenance from the respondent. The learned Trial Court partly allowed the petition and monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- was granted to petitioner No. 2 (minor daughter) and no maintenance was granted to petitioner No. 1, as she was held to be receiving all necessities of her life, including maintenance from the respondent. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner, by way of filing criminal revision, approached the learned Revision Court and the learned Revision Court, vide its judgment dated 30.11.2012 (impugned judgment) granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to petitioner No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,000/- to petitioner No. 2 (minor daughter) from the date of filing the petition. Hence, the respondent (husband) maintained the present petition laying challenge to the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2012, passed by the learned Revision Court. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the available records. 4. The learned vice Counsel for the petitioner herein has argued that the petitioner is working as servant in a shop and getting Rs. 9,000/- per month, so it is difficult for him to give Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents. He has further argued that the petitioner has to spend money on his son also. He has prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Revision Court be quashed and set side and the monthly maintenance amount granted to the petitioners be reduced. Conversely, the learned Counsel for the respondents herein has argued that the petitioner is not working in a shop, but he runs the shop of his father. He has further argued that monthly income of the petitioner is handsome for him Rs. 5,000/- is not a big amount. He has argued that the respondents are poor persons and they could not maintain themselves, as they have no means of livelihood. Petitioner No. 2 is minor daughter and petitioner No. 1 has to spend on her upbringing and education, so they are totally dependant upon the maintenance amount. It is prayed that the petition, which sans merits, be dismissed. 5. Petitioner No. 2 is minor daughter and petitioner No. 1 has to spend on her upbringing and education, so they are totally dependant upon the maintenance amount. It is prayed that the petition, which sans merits, be dismissed. 5. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that keeping in view the income of the petitioner and the fact that the maintenance allowance as awarded by the learned Trial Court is on a very higher side, the petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Revision Court be quashed and set aside and monthly maintenance allowance be reduced. 6. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Agreeably, status of the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant, income and property of the claimant, liabilities of the claimant etc. are some of factors which a Court must look into while granting monthly maintenance. For granting maintenance amount the Courts cannot be oblivious to fact that the claimant has to spend on his/her upkeep or dependants, purchase of essential items etc. The aim of granting maintenance is to prevent vagrancy to the claimant. In the instant case, the record reveals that the learned Lower Revision Court granted monthly maintenance amount Rs. 3,000/- to petitioner No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,000/- to petitioner No. 2 (minor daughter). True it is that the maintenance amount should be reasonable, neither excessive nor exorbitant. It has come in the evidence, as also noted by the learned Revision Court, that the father of the respondent runs a business of hardware in Main Bazaar, Ghumarwin. It is highly imaginative that the respondent is engaged as a servant by his father for monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/-. In order to dodge his liabilities towards the petitioners, the respondent unsuccessfully tried to portray that he is working as a servant in the shop of his father. Viewed with the angle that the petitioners, being wife and minor daughter of the respondent, have no source of income to maintain themselves and respondent is liable to maintain them and also keeping in view the cost of living index, this Court sees no merits in the instant petition. This Court finds that the monthly maintenance amount granted to petitioner No. 1 and 2 is neither excessive nor exorbitant. 7. This Court finds that the monthly maintenance amount granted to petitioner No. 1 and 2 is neither excessive nor exorbitant. 7. Plainly, the expression 'maintenance' means appropriate food, clothing and lodging, but the expression 'maintenance' is not to be narrowly interpreted. Maintenance is to be fixed and granted by the Courts keeping in view many circumstances, viz., minimum amount for education of children, expenses of upbringing of children, food, raiment, shelter, expenses on health etc. etc. Therefore, maintenance merely to a human body is not sufficient and it does not only mean clothing and food. So, keeping in view the settled position of law as also the evidence, which has come on record and without discussing the same in depth, this Court finds that the learned Lower Revision Court has rightly fixed and granted the maintenance amount to petitioner No. 1 (wife) and petitioner No. 2 (daughter). 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the instant petition. The petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 9. With the above observations the petition, as also pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.