Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 480 (HP)

Anshul Sharma v. Aryantika Sharma

2020-08-11

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 2.8.2019, vide Annexure-P/1, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly also be passed in the interest of justice and fair play." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondents before this Court (hereinafter to be referred as 'the applicants') filed an application under Section 125 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance against the present petitioner inter alia on the ground that they were the legitimate daughters of the present petitioner and were entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month each on account of reasons mentioned in the application. It was the case of the applicants before the learned Court below that they were students and money was required for their upkeep besides for the purpose of payment of fees and educational expenses as also their clothing etc. According to them, they were not being maintained by the petitioner since the month of September, 2017. Their case was that the petitioner was a well renowned Astrologer and had income of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. He was having two houses at Bilaspur and rental income of more than Rs. 15,000/- was received from the properties. As per the applicants, it was on account of some illicit relationship of their father with a lady that relations between the parties, including their mother had become strained, resulting in physical abuse of theirs and mother as well by the petitioner. 3. The application was resisted by the present petitioner inter alia on the ground that he was neither having income as alleged nor he was a man of means. As per him, he had already taken educational loan in the name of one of his daughters which he had paid himself and the contention of his daughters with regard to the fees etc. was also not correct. As per him, he had already taken educational loan in the name of one of his daughters which he had paid himself and the contention of his daughters with regard to the fees etc. was also not correct. According to the petitioner, his wife had misbehaved with his aged parents and had thrown them out of the house and he was not responsible for the strained relationship. 4. Learned Court below vide order dated 2.8.2019 partly allowed the application filed by the daughters of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of Aryantika Sharma and Rs. 5,000/- in favour of Gauri Sharma from the date of filing of the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents appended with the pleadings. 7. It is not in dispute that the applicants before the learned Court below are the daughters of the present petitioner. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Court below demonstrates that it has assigned reasons, as to why, it was ordering the grant of Rs. 8,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of the applicants before it respectively. Learned Court below held that documents on record demonstrated that the father of the applicants was a man of means and he earned handsomely and was an able-bodied person. Learned Court also held that there was no proof of the fact that the mother of the applicants before it was either running a Beauty Parlour or was having any other source of income. It further held that the applicants before it were entitled for basic necessities of life besides fees and it was the duty of the father to maintain his children. 8. In my considered view, the findings returned by the learned Trial Court and the amount awarded by it as interim maintenance in favour of the applicants before it can not be said to be not sustainable in law or exorbitant. It is not in dispute that present petitioner is the father of the respondents before this Court, who happen to be his daughters. It is not in dispute that present petitioner is the father of the respondents before this Court, who happen to be his daughters. It is not in dispute that the daughters have no source of income nor the father was able to demonstrate before the learned Court below that his wife was having any source of income to maintain their daughters. It is further not in dispute that the daughters of the present petitioner are undergoing education, and but obvious, for the same money is required. Money is also required for other basic necessities of these girls and it is the moral and pious obligation of the father to look after the basic needs of his children. This Court is laying emphasis upon the fact that it is the moral and pious obligation of the father to at least cater to the basic needs of his children, and in today's world, it can not be said that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month which has been ordered as interim maintenance by the learned Court below in favour of the daughters respectively, is either excessive or shall be allowing the daughters to lead a luxurious life. In fact, the amount which has been ordered by the learned Court is just enough to look after the basic needs of the children and in this view of the matter, as this Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Court below, the same calls for no interference. 9. Before parting, this Court intends to make an observation that it is being generally seen that in petitions which are being filed before this Court, be it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the impugned orders are being assailed inter alia on the strength of Annexures which are being appended with the petitions being filed in this regard, but, which were not the record of the learned Trial Court. In this case also, this has happened. In this case also, this has happened. It is made clear that when a party approaches this Court against an order passed by the learned Court below, then, the impugned order has to be scrutinized by this Court only on the strength of the documents/evidence, which the respective parties have placed before the learned Court below and the legality of the order cannot be tested by this Court on the strength of documents which were not placed before the learned Court below by the parties concerned. This petition is however dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, be also stand disposed of.