Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 147 (HP)

Vijay Kumar v. Tamanna Sharma & Anr.

2021-03-15

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has assailed order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Family Court Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Petition No. 32/19/2018, titled as Tamana Sharma an another Vs. Vijay Kumar filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance by the respondents herein, which has been allowed by the said Court in the following terms: "18. In view of my findings on point No. 1 as discussed above, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners, whereby the respondent is directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the petitioner/applicant No. 1 and Rs.3000/- per month to petitioner No. 2 (minor child) from today. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Copy of the order be supplied to the petitioners free of costs. The file after its due completion, be consigned to the record room. Announced today in the open Court on this, the 22nd day of October, 2019. 2. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same has been passed without appreciating that the petitioner was not having any means of income so as to comply with the order so passed by it. He further argued that what weighed with the learned Court below was the fact that the petitioner was running a spare parts shop and was also having vehicles, but learned Court erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was suffering from serious disease and he was under heavy debts. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Court below be quashed and set aside and the petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be dismissed. 3. Opposing the petition, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the maintenance amount which has been granted in favour of the respondents by the learned Court below is a reasonable one. 3. Opposing the petition, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the maintenance amount which has been granted in favour of the respondents by the learned Court below is a reasonable one. An amount of Rs.7000/- only has been granted as maintenance in favour of the wife and minor daughter in the share of Rs.4000/- and Rs.3000/-, respectively, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be either on higher side or exaggerated. He further submitted that the petitioner is a man of means and his contention that he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance, as directed by the learned Court below, on account of illness etc., are lame excuses and do not have any merit. Mr. Palsra has further argued that otherwise also as the claimants happens to be the wife and minor daughter of the petitioner, he is both legally and morally bound to maintain them. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order. 5. Record demonstrates that the marriage between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 19.04.2016 and one daughter was borne out of the said wedlock on 01.03.2017. The allegation of the wife against the husband was that after marriage, she was treated with cruelty and also physically abused by the petitioner. With effect from 22.05.2017, the wife and the minor daughter were deserted by the present petitioner. It was further the case of the claimants that the husband was owning one truck, one jeep and also one personal car. He was also having landed property and one shop of spare parts and was having income more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 6. The claim was resisted by the husband, inter alia, on the ground that wife was never ill-treated by him, nor he deserted his wife or minor daughter, but as he was suffering from some illness and was totally dependent upon his parents, wife was trying to take advantage of the same and had involved him in false litigations. 7. 6. The claim was resisted by the husband, inter alia, on the ground that wife was never ill-treated by him, nor he deserted his wife or minor daughter, but as he was suffering from some illness and was totally dependent upon his parents, wife was trying to take advantage of the same and had involved him in false litigations. 7. On the basis of respective submissions of the parties, learned Court below held that the evidence on record does suggest that the relationship between the parties was strained and further there was no evidence to prove that the husband had made any effort to bring the wife and minor child back to his house and to maintain them. It further held that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the wife was having any source of income, whereas, there was admission on the part of the husband that he was owning three vehicles, whose details are mentioned in the order passed by the learned Court below and that he was also running a spare parts shop. On these bases, learned Court below allowed the petition filed under Section 125 of the Court of Criminal Procedure by granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- to the wife and Rs.3000/- to the minor child. 8. In my considered view, the findings so returned by the learned Court below call for no interference. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Court below were perverse and not borne out from the record, as it is not in dispute that the claimants were legally wedded wife and minor child of the present petitioner. As the record also suggested that he was not maintaining them, learned Court below rightly ordered the husband to pay maintenance both to the wife as well as minor child. The amount determined by the learned Court below as maintenance charges also is a reasonable amount and the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the plea of his alleged illness as it is proved on record that he is a man of means, who owns three vehicles and a shop of spare parts. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.