Kuma umar Sushma Rani & ani Sushma Rani & ani Vs. *** & Anr. v. CRR-F-410-2023(O&M) M) (s)

Order

12.08.2024 Saurabh Kuma Sushma Rani & ani & Another Sushma Rani & ani & Another Vs. *** Vs. CRR-F-410-2023(O&M) M) (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) M) CRR-F-945-2023(O&M) (s) …..Petitioner(s) Saurabh Kuma CORAM: Present:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA (s) …..Respondent(s) Mr.Saurav Bhatia, Advocat for the petitioner (in CRR- -F-410-2023). Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Adv for the respondents (in CRR , Advocate CRR-F-410-2023). ***** ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J CRM-14793- 2024 IN CRR-F-410-2023 This is an application un under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for placing on rec record copy of Inquiry Report co rt conducted under the Domestic Violence Act, b ct, by the Inquiry Officer as Annexu exure R1. After going through the on, the contents of the application, which is suppo upported by affidavit of the applican licant/respondent No.1, the same is allowed sub subject to all just exceptions and An rd. d Annexure R1 is taken on record. SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-26977- 2023 IN CRR-F-945-2023 12 This is an application unde under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonatio nation of delay of 53 days in filing th g the petition. After going through the on, the contents of the application, which is suppo upported by affidavit of the applican licant, the same is allowed subject to all just exc exceptions and delay of 53 days in ys in filing the present petition is condoned. MAIN CASE Challenge in both these cr cross-petitions is to order dated

10.01.2023 pa 3 passed by learned Principal Jud ad, Judge, Family Court, Fatehabad, Camp Court a rt at Ratia, whereby in an applicat lication filed by the wife and the child under S er Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant ant of interim maintenance, the husband has b as been directed to pay Rs.15,000 ,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- per month to wif wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to h to the child) from the date of application i.e n i.e. 27.04.2021.

2. Both the above said petiti etitions are being disposed of by this common on order as facts, parties and i nd impugned order in both the matters are id re identical. For the sake of conve nvenience, facts and being taken from and part parties are being referred to as per 23 per the status in CRR-F-410-2023 filed by the hu e husband. On 12.02.2024, following wing order was passed by this

3. Court:- SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12

“Learned counsel for the respond pondents (wife and child) submits that respondent No.1/wife alon along with her minor son was residing in the shared househo sehold. It is contended that the petitioner/husband and his par parents have vacated the said shared household and disconnec nnected the electricity and water supply thereto; and now the resp respondent No.1/wife is residing alone with her minor son in t in the said house. It is further submitted that this fact has also also been reported in the inquiry report conducted under the Do e Domestic Violence Act, by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel f sel for the respondents (wife and child) seeks some time to place o ce on record the aforesaid inquiry report. At request, adjourned to 12.08.20

8.2024. In view of the above, the interim erim relief granted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order da - r dated 20.03.2023, to petitioner- husband in CRR-F-410-2023 023 whereby execution proceedings beyond maintenanc nance @ Rs.10,000/- per month was stayed, only to explore th e the possibility of an amicable solution, is vacated. A copy of this order be placed aced on the file(s) of connected case(s).”

4. Learned counsel for the pe e petitioner/husband vehemently argues that th t the above said premise that the p he petitioners and his parents had vacated the sh e shared household and had also di so disconnected the electricity and water supplies plies thereto, as argued by learned s is ned counsel for the respondents is patently untru ntrue and false. It is submitted th d that the respondent No.1/wife had sought an t an ad interim injunction from th m the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rati Ratia, to the effect that the electric ctricity connection be maintained in her name me being the occupant of the . the shared household premises. However, the the same was declined by the the learned Civil Judge (Junior SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Division), Rati Ratia, vide order dated 21.08.202 .2023; which was upheld by the 12 learned Addit dditional District Judge, Fatehabad

23. bad vide order dated 13.09.2023. The responde ndent No.1 had even challenged 23 ged the order dated 13.09.2023 before this Co s Court by way of CR-6767-2023. Ho 23 . However, the said CR-6767-2023 has been dism dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2 .12.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this this Court. It is submitted that at accordingly, the contention of respondent No t No.1/wife that the petitioner and and his parents had disconnected the electricity icity and water supply to the prem premises occupied by respondent No.1/wife, are are patently misleading; and comp omplete facts were not brought to the notice of of this Court while passing orde order dated 12.02.2024, thereby vacating the he interim stay granted to the petit petitioner by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court v rt vide order dated 20.03.2023.

5. Learned counsel further ther submits that respondent No.1/wife had had also registered an FIR No.86 da 6 dated 07.08.2019 under Section 498-A IPC at P at Police Station Khanauri, Sangrur grur against the petitioner and his family. It is su is submitted that in the said case, r se, respondent No.1/wife has not put in appeara earance for six dates as a result of t of which, bailable warrants have now been iss issued against her vide consecut 24, ecutive orders dated 24.01.2024,

26.02.2024 an 4 and 03.04.2024. Copies of the sa e said orders are handed over in the Court, whi which are taken on record.

6. On merits of the matte atter, learned counsel for the petitioner sub submits that the petitioner is work orking as a helper in an electrical shop at Pinjo injore at a salary of Rs.7,400/- m per month as is evident from certificate dat dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure P7). It ly, . It is submitted that accordingly, SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the petitioner oner is not in a position to pay R ay Rs.15,000/- per month to the 12 respondents. ts. It is submitted that in granting ce, ting the impugned maintenance, the learned Fa d Family Court has wrongly relied lied upon Income Tax Returns for the year 2018 018-19, as per which annual income ome of the petitioner is shown to be Rs.2,60,51 0,518/- along with agriculture inco income of Rs.1,20,500/-. Learned counsel conte ntends that it was the specific cas case of the petitioner before the learned Famil amily Court that he has been di n disowned by his parents vide Disownment D nt Deed/Disinheritance Affidavit da 5) it dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure P5) and Disinherit eritance Notice dated 04.08.2019 ( 19 (Annexure P6) issued by father of the petition itioner. It is submitted that it is the the father of the petitioner who is the owner of r of the Rice Mill and the petitione ioner has nothing to do with the same especia ecially since he has been disow isowned by his parents due to harassment ca nt caused to them from the various rious litigations imposed upon the petitioner and and his family by the respondent N No.1.

7. Per contra, learned counse unsel for the respondents submits that vide ord order dated 20.03.2023, the pa e parties were referred to the Mediation, ho , however, the respondents were ere unable to appear as she is fearful that at in case they put in appeara earance and leaves the shared household, th , they would be thrown out. . It is also submitted that the petitioner/hus /husband is living a luxurious lifesty t festyle. He is using a Maruti Swift car. It is subm ubmitted that the petitioner has b as been disowned by his parents only to deny m ny maintenance to the respondents ents. It is submitted that in actual fact, he belon elongs to a rich family having assets t is ssets of more than Rs.1 crore. It is accordingly, p ly, prayed that the impugned mainte aintenance be enhanced. SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

9. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. 12 I have heard learned couns ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail.

10. Brief facts of the case are a re as follows: –

18.4.2018 – Th The petitioner was married to res respondent No.1 on 18.4.2018.

13.1.2019 – Re Respondent No.2 was born out of

19. ut of their wedlock on 13.01.2019.

23.5.2019 – – Due to matrimonial discord cord, the parties started living separately fro from 23.05.2019.

03.08.2019: Vide Disownment Deed dated 0 03.08.2019 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was was disowned by his family membe mbers.

07.08.2019: FIR No.86 dated 07.08.2019 un .S. under Section 498-A IPC at P.S. Khanauri Sang Sangrur was registered by Responde ndent No.1 against the petitioner and his family mily members.

08.06.2020: Petitioner is working as helper in er in an Electrical Shop in Pinjore i.e. Bhandari ari Electricals at a Salary of Rs.7,40 400/- per month, enhancement of 5% every ye ry year as evident from certificate d - te dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure P- 7).

09.09.2020: It has been alleged by the petit etitioner that on 09.09.2020, the respondent N t No.1 came to the house of the the father of the petitioner and created a ruck ruckus and forcibly entered the hou house. SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12

14.09.2020 – – As an outcome of the incident ent dated 09.09.2020, a Civil Suit seeking ad-int interim injunction, was instituted b ted by the father of the petitioner.

17.09.2020: In In the said Civil Suit, Stay was gra s granted in favour of the father of ner. the petitioner

28.09.2020: The above said stay granted vide vide order dated 17.09.2020 was challenged by d by the respondent No.1 before ore this Court vide Civil Revision No.2321 of 20 f 2020. Vide order date 28.09.2020 020 (Annexure P-3), operation of the order date dated 17.09.2020 was stayed by this this Court.

29.09.2020: Defendant No.3/respondent No. o.1 contested the suit by filing Written State tatement and claimed that the pla plaintiff/father of the petitioner got the electr lectricity connection disconnected ted on 29.09.2020 by paying an advance bill am ill amounting to Rs. 9800/-.

27.4.2021: Pe Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. .P.C. was filed by the respondents on 27.04.2021

2021. On a Court query, as to ho how the respondents sustained themselves s from 23.05.2019 to 27.04.202 .2021, learned counsel for the respondents h ts has offered no reply.

10.01.2023: Vide impugned order dated 10 d 10.01.2023, the petitioner was directed to pa o pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as In s Interim Maintenance Allowance to the Applica licants (Rs.10,000/- to Applicant No t No.1 and Rs. 5,000/-to Applicant No.2)

12.05.2023: The above-mentioned injuncti 20 nction order dated 17.09.2020 which was cha challenged by respondent No.1/wi 1/wife before this Court by way of CR-2321-2020 020, has been dismissed by th y this Court vide order dated SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12

12.05.2023. Despite that, the respondent nt No.1 continues to occupy the shared househ usehold.

21.06.2023: Electricity connection was disco 1 isconnected by defendants No.1 and 2/Dakshi kshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam er, am through Executive Engineer, Operation Div Division DHBVN Fatehabad; and and SDO Operation DHBVN City Ratia, Tehsil R sil Ratia & District Fatehabad.

14.08.2023: CMA/49/2023 Appeal again gainst impugned order dated

17.07.2023 pa 3 passed by the Court of Ms. Shiv Shivani Garg, learned Civil Judge (Junior Divisio vision), Ratia, District Fatehabad, wh - , whereby request for passing ad- interim injunc junction was dismissed. Decision: CMA CMA is disposed of

21.08.2023: Th The application of the responden s 1 dent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Read wit with 151 CPC, seeking ad-interim rim injunction for the release of electricity con connection was declined by the the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ratia Ratia.

13.09.2023: The respondent No.1 filed App Appeal against the order dated

21.08.2023 w which was also declined by th the Learned Additional District Judge, Fatehab ehabad.

05.12.2023: CR-6767-2023 Revision Petition o.1 ion filed by the respondent No.1 for setting as g asideorder dated 13.09.2023, an and order dated 21.08.2023, is dismissed by t by this Court. SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

24.01.2024: CIS No. CHI/128/2020 Non on-Bailable Warrants 12 issued to respondent N No.1 and Dharampal Singh for 26. r 26.02.2024.

26.02.2024: Non-Bailable Warrants issued sued to respondent No.1 and Dharampal Sin l Singh for 03.04.2024.

03.04.2024: Non-Bailable Warrants issued sued to respondent No.1 and Dharampal Sin l Singh for 10.05.2024.

11. It is the case of the respo espondents that the petitioner is earning Rs.1 s.1 lakh per month by running a g a Rice Mill and income from agricultural la al land. On the other hand, the pe e petitioner has placed on record the Certificate icate (Annexure P7), as per whic hich he is working at Bhandari Electricals on on a salary of Rs.7,400/- per mon month. Furthermore, it has been noticed in the the impugned order that except fo t for the bald assertions made by the responden ndents to the effect that the petitio titioner/husband owns a Rice Mill and has a s a school on rent, no evidence ce has been produced by the respondents t ts to support the said assertions. ns. However, keeping in view the Income Tax R ax Returns for the year 2018-19 19 as also the fact that the respondents h ts had placed on record Jamaband bandi for the year 2018-19 which shows that t at the petitioner is owner of ha f half share in agricultural land measuring 14 14 kanal; as also the bank accoun ount statements of the petitioner which reflect lected substantial amount being ing deposited in return by the petitioner, the , the learned Family Court had gr d granted the impugned interim ce. maintenance. SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

12. It is by now a settled tled trend that in matters of 12 maintenance ce such as the present one, the the husband tries to depict his income on t n the lower side, whereas the the wife attempts to show an exaggerated income of the husband. Th The truth lies somewhere between. How However, these are all matters ters of evidence. The truth or otherwise of of the allegations and counter- -allegations made by both the parties can on n only be determined upon leadin ading of evidence. As such, it is neither desira sirable nor feasible for this Court urt to interfere at this stage, let alone return a rn a finding in respect of the contr ontrary assertions made by either ties. of the parties.

13. However, the grant of interim maintenance a is a temporary m measure of social justice to he help the abandoned wife and children to tid o tide over the difficult period. It is o t is oft-repeated and no longer res integra that at Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measur asure of social justice to protect abandoned w d wife, children and parents from n rom vagrancy and destitution. In “Kirtikant D. V . Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & 79, rat & Another” (1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Su le Supreme Court has opined as follo follows: “15. ...While dealing with with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Sect Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to e to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to preven event destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can s can support those who are unable to support themselves bu s but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in s in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, c en, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The p he provisions in Section 125 are SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12 intended to achieve this sp is special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benev enevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a ss, in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation ion…”

14. Again, a three-Judge Ben Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vim Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) K.)” (1991) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justic ws: stice Fatima Beevi, held as follows: “3. Section 125 of the Co e Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a socia social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and dest destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of f of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife...”

15. Thus, the purpose of Sec Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned w d wives who are unable to mainta aintain themselves from vagrancy and destitutio ution, to grant social justice to a de a destitute woman, child, or infirm parents. Mor Moreover, in view of the admitte mitted relationship between the parties, the p he petitioner cannot escape his r is responsibility to maintain the respondent.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou v. Court in “Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan an” (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 661 661024, has categorically held as follows: – SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document “B. Criminal Procedure Cod Code, 1973 Section 125 Grant of maintenance to wife - Plea of hu of husband that he was not doing job and had no means to pay ca y cannot be accepted - These are only bald excuses - Held :- 12 (i) If the husband is h n a is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support hims himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wi is wife. (ii) It is the obligatio ation of the husband to maintain his wife - He cannot be p be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wif e wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of e e of earning.”

17. Thus, even if the contentio ntion of the petitioner is accepted that he is no not earning enough, he cannot not escape his moral and legal obligation to m to maintain the respondents.

18. Learned counsel for the pe e petitioner and respondents are unable to disp dispute the above said factual and l nd legal position.

19. Accordingly, I find no grou ground is made out that calls for interference i ce in the impugned order. As su s such, both these petitions are dismissed.

20. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of.

12.08.2024 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2024.08.21 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document