Smt. Mamta Rani v. Balraj

Smt. Mamta Rani wife of Balraj 24 years, daughter of Shri Ram; Vikram Jeet Singh minor son of Balraj through mother and natural guardian Smt. Mamta wife of Balraj; both residents of Street No. 9, Ward No. 10, Bhart Nagar, Tibba Danasher, Near Navbharat High School, Hisar. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus Balraj son of Sh. Ramji Lal Khatana, resident of village Kumharia, Tehsil and District Fatehabad at present posted as Constable No. 15316395 3rd Engineering 75 Co. 56 APO, Udhampur (J&K). ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. C.M. No. 30998 of 2010 For the reasons, recorded in the C.M., the same is allowed. Delay of 155 days in filing the revision-petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No. 1679 of 2010 This revision-petition, is directed, against the order dated

29.09.09, passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, vide C. M. No. 30998 of 2010 and Criminal Revision No. 1679 of 2010 2 which, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1700/- per month, to Smt. Mamta Rani, revision-petitioner No. 1, and, Rs. 800/- per month, to Vikram Jeet Singh, son of Balraj Singh, revision-petitioner No. 2, was granted.

2. The marriage of Mamta Rani, was solemnized with the respondent, according to the Hindu religious rites, on 17.05.2000, at Hisar. After the marriage, revision-petitioner No. 1 and respondent, lived together and cohabited, as husband and wife. From this wedlock, Vikram Jeet Singh, revision-petitioner No. 2, was born. Sufficient dowry, was given, at the time of marriage of revision- petitioner No. 1. After one year, the respondent and his family members, started harassing her in connection with the demand of motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash. They threatened her that, otherwise, she would not be allowed to settle, in her matrimonial home. In the month of April, 2006, she was pregnant, when she was turned out of her matrimonial home. It was stated that, since then, she has been residing, in her parental house. It was further stated that, the parents of revision-petitioner No. 1, tried their best, to rehabilitate their daughter, in her matrimonial home, but, to no avail. It was further stated that, the respondent, is employed in the Army and has got sufficient means, to maintain them. It was further stated that, revision-petitioner No. 1, is having no means, to maintain herself and her minor child. Accordingly, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month was claimed. C. M. No. 30998 of 2010 and Criminal Revision No. 1679 of 2010 3

In reply, the respondent, admitted the marriage. It was denied, that revision-petitioner No. 1, was ever tortured, in connection with the demand of more dowry, in the shape of motorcycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. It was stated that, the respondent, filed a petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. It was further stated that, the respondent, was not in a position, to pay any maintenance, to the revision-petitioners, as he was with a great difficulty earning his livelihood, and also supporting his old mother, who is suffering from various ailments. It was further stated that, the respondent, was ready, to rehabilitate the petitioners, in his house and never neglected them.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the Court below, granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1700/- per month, to Mamta Rani, revision-petitioner No. 1, and, Rs. 800/- per month, to Vikram Jeet Singh, revision-petitioner No. 2.

Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequacy of maintenance, awarded to the revision-petitioners, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by them.

I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the respondent, is serving in the army. He further submitted that, during C. M. No. 30998 of 2010 and Criminal Revision No. 1679 of 2010 4 the course of his cross-examination, the respondent, admitted that, he was getting salary of more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. He further submitted that, revision-petitioner No. 2, being minor, is residing with revision-petitioner No. 1. She has also to maintain herself, as also her minor son, who is grown up and school going. He further submitted that, the maintenance, granted by the Court below, is highly inadequate. He, thus, prayed that, it be enhanced.

After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident, from the order of the Court below, that the salary of the respondent, is about Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent, has got an old mother, suffering from various ailments. She is dependant upon the respondent. The Court below, after taking into consideration, the financial condition of the respondent, his liabilities, the liabilities of revision-petitioner No. 1, and, status of the parties, in the society, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that maintenance, to the tune of Rs. 1700/- per month, to revision-petitioner No. 1, and Rs. 800/- per month, to revision- petitioner No. 2, would be adequate and reasonable. There is no scope for the enhancement of maintenance, granted to the revision- petitioners, by the Court below. The order of the Court below, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. C. M. No. 30998 of 2010 and Criminal Revision No. 1679 of 2010 5

For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 1679 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed.

05.08.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE