Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1332 (PNJ)

Amarjeet Verma v. Pooja Yadav

2022-07-20

DEEPAK SIBAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral) - Respondent No.l filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act) through which she alleged that she and the petitioner got married on 14.12.2015; on such marriage, respondent No.l's father had spent Rs. 15 lakhs; after the marriage respondent No.l stayed with the petitioner in Delhi; soon after marriage the behaviour of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 towards respondent No.l changed as they started taunting her for bringing inferior/ less dowry; the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 also subjected respondent No.l to cruelty and gave her beatings and that the petitioner had illicit relations with respondent No.3- Lata. 2. On the basis of afore averments respondent No.l claimed several reliefs under Sections 12 and 18 to 22 of the Act which included maintenance, right of residence etc. A prayer was also made by respondent No.l for grant of interim relief in the form of interim maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month and to restrain the petitioner from alienating his assets. 3. On being put to notice the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram (for short, the Trial Court) and filed a written statement denying the case set up by respondent No.l. In their response they inter-alia stated that since respondent No.l had left the company of the petitioner without any provocation on his part and because there was never any demand of dowry or giving of beatings by the petitioner/ respondent Nos.2 to 4 as also for the reason that she was in an extra marital relationship with one Sunil Kumar -respondent No.l was not entitled to any relief. It was further submitted by them that the petitioner was not owning any property and therefore there was no question of any restraint order with regard to alienation of his properties. 4. After going through the pleadings of the parties as also hearing their respective counsel, the Trial Court held that respondent No.l was not entitled to the grant of any interim relief, as the case set up by respondent No.l was found to be doubtful primarily on the ground that a car was registered in her name as wife of Sunil Kumar with whom she was alleged to have an extra marital affair. The Trial Court was further of the view that the conflicting claims as to whether respondent No.l had herself deserted the petitioner or not were still to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by both sides. 5. Respondent No.l challenged the aforesaid order of the Trial Court through a revision petition. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram (for short, the Revisional Court) examined the registration certificate of the car bearing registration No. HR-26-CM-9688 and found that its registered owner was Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar who was resident of House No.64, Sector 10-A, Palra, Gurugram. The Revisional Court also perused the PAN card and Aadhar card of Sunil Kumar's legally wedded wife and found that her name was also Pooja whose father's name was Kartar Singh whereas respondent No.l's father's name was Ranjeet Yadav. Thus, the Revisional Court was of the view that the Trial Court had acted in haste in dismissing the respondent No.l's plea for interim maintenance. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision on merits. Such order of the Revisional Court is under challenge through the instant petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is liable to be set aside as the Trial Court had rightly held respondent No.l to be not entitled to any interim relief; the interim orders passed by the Trial Court reveal the nonseriousness with which respondent No.l has pursued her litigation as she has unnecessarily delayed the proceedings; respondent No.l also did not pursue her application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as the same was dismissed for non-prosecution showing that she was only filing cases against the petitioner to harass him and that enough evidence had been placed on the record by the petitioner to show that respondent No.l was having illicit relations with one Sunil Kumar and therefore had willfully left his company. 7. The Trial Court primarily relied upon the registration certificate of a car bearing No.HR-26-CM-9688 as per which the owner of such car was Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar. On evaluation of such evidence the Trial Court found prima facie credence in the claim set up by the petitioner that respondent No.l was having illicit relations with Sunil Kumar and therefore denied interim relief to respondent No.l. 8. On evaluation of such evidence the Trial Court found prima facie credence in the claim set up by the petitioner that respondent No.l was having illicit relations with Sunil Kumar and therefore denied interim relief to respondent No.l. 8. The Revisional Court went deeper into the issue and after perusing PAN card and Aadhar card of Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar as also the registration certificate of car No. HR-26-CM-9688 came to the conclusion that the owner of the car was Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar. However, Sunil Kumar's legally wedded wife's name was also Pooja and as per her PAN and Aadhar Cards she was daughter of one Kartar Singh whereas respondent No.l was Pooja who is daughter of Ranjeet Yadav. Thus, the Revisional Court found that there were two Poojas and therefore was of the view that the Trial Court had acted in haste in rejecting respondent No.l's plea for interim relief. The Revisional Court was further of the view that the Trial Court, without recording any worthwhile reasons, had rejected respondent No.l's prayer for interim relief by simply observing that it was yet to be proved as to whether she had herself left the petitioner's company or not. The relevant findings recorded by the Revisional Court in this regard are as under:- '7. Thus, it is clear that learned Magistrate after seeing the Registration Certificate of the car in the name of Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar was in doubt about version of the petitioner. However, perusal of copy of registration certificate of Car No. HR-26-CM-9688, which is alleged to have been purchased by one Sunil Kumar, with whom the applicant Pooja has alleged illicit relations, reveals that it is purchased in the name of Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar resident of 64, Sector-10A, Palra, Gurugram. As per her Aadhar Card, Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar is resident of 64, Sector-lOA, Palra, Gurugram. Her PAN Card has also been placed on record. Aadhar Card of Pooja placed on record by the respondent shows that wife of Sunil Kumar is also Pooja. In PAN Card of Pooja (wife of Sunil Kumar) her father name is recorded as Kartar Singh whereas concededly applicant's father is Ranjeet Yadav. Her PAN Card has also been placed on record. Aadhar Card of Pooja placed on record by the respondent shows that wife of Sunil Kumar is also Pooja. In PAN Card of Pooja (wife of Sunil Kumar) her father name is recorded as Kartar Singh whereas concededly applicant's father is Ranjeet Yadav. Therefore, prima facie there appears two Pooja involved in the case, one is Pooja wife of Sunil Kumar daughter of Kartar Singh and other is the applicant Pooja Yadav wife of Amar Verma daughter of Ranjeet Yadav. This material fact has escaped the attention of learned Magistrate. 8. Learned Magistrate despite being cautious of the fact that RC's validity and genuineness is to be decided during the course of evidence, has dismissed the application. Another doubt entertain by learned Magistrate while declining the application is whether the applicant herself deserted respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 1 had thrown her out of the house. Learned Magistrate without recording its satisfaction, even though prima facie that the application had deserted the respondent without any justification and her ability to maintain herself should not have dismissed the application. " 9. The deeper scrutiny of documents by the Revisional Court fully justifies the passing of the impugned order. 10. After examining the record of this case and going through the reasons recorded by the Revisional Court in the afore quoted portion of its order, this Court is of the view that the order of the Trial Court was rightly set aside by the Revisional Court and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court warrants no interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, especially when the Revisional Court has only directed the Trial Court to decide afresh the plea of respondent No.l with regard to grant of interim maintenance. 11. Dismissed.