Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 150 (PNJ)

Meenakshi @ Babli v. Kapil

2020-01-14

JAISHREE THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Jaishree Thakur, J. - This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "the Code") seeking enhancement of maintenance as allowed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul dated 23.8.2017. 2. In brief, the facts are that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.1.2012, according to the Hindu rites. However, the marriage did not last very long and the petitioner was expelled from the matrimonial home on 20.7.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Narnaul, by order dated 24.10.2016 directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the petitioner. Being dissatisfied against the said order, the petitioner herein preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, who modified the order dated 24.10.2016 and enhanced the amount of maintenance by Rs. 500/-, thereby directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the order of the Sessions Judge by arguing that the amount of maintenance as awarded is highly inadequate and is not enough to sustain the petitioner. It is argued that in fact, the petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 20,000/- per month along with litigation charges, as claimed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the pleadings as well as both the orders as passed by the courts below. 5. No doubt, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted as a social measure to put an end to the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for no fault of hers and who does not have any sufficient means to support herself, so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court for her to sustain herself and also her children. These proceedings are in the form of summary in nature and the matter has to be decided on the basis of some averments/pleadings/documents supported by the parties. However, the Courts, while deciding the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have to balance the equities between the parties. These proceedings are in the form of summary in nature and the matter has to be decided on the basis of some averments/pleadings/documents supported by the parties. However, the Courts, while deciding the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife have to balance the equities between the parties. The petitioner in order to claim maintenance stepped into the witness box as AW-2 and tendered her affidavit Ex. AW-I/A, stating therein that the respondent was working as a Designer Engineer and was getting salary of Rs. 35,000/- apart from having the income from the agricultural land. However, she failed to support her statement by proving service record of the respondent from the Company that he was allegedly working for and also failed to prove any documentary evidence in the shape of jamabandi as well as khasra girdawari to prove the income of the respondent from the agricultural land. 6. On the other hand, the respondent had stepped into the witness box as RW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A stating that he was 10+2 pass and was doing a job in a cloth shop situated at Behror and is getting salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. He also examined Mr. Kirorimal, the person who had got the marriage solemnized between the parties and he too deposed that the respondent was working in Lovely Cloth House and was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. Thus, an independent witness also corroborated the stand taken by the respondent husband that he was working at Lovely Cloth House, Behror. 7. From the above evidence led by the parties, it is apparent that there is no substance in the plea of the petitioner that the respondent is getting Rs. 35,000/- per month from a Company he is employed and additional Rs. 10,000/- from the agricultural land. Even the argument that is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the minimum wages of highly skilled worker in the State of Rajasthan, to which the petitioner belongs, in the year 2016 was Rs. 7,045/- would not be of any help, because the petitioner has not been able to prove whether the respondent has any skill in any field. 8. For the afore-stated reason, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order for enhancement of compensation. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. 7,045/- would not be of any help, because the petitioner has not been able to prove whether the respondent has any skill in any field. 8. For the afore-stated reason, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order for enhancement of compensation. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. Needless to mention that incase the petitioner is ever able to establish the income of the respondent, she would always be at liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.