07.2024 Kuldip Kaur v. Hans Raj and an & Anr.

ition filed by the wife is to the order dated 16.04.202

04.2024 whereby a petition filed und y the d under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has b has been dismissed by the learned ourt, rned Principal Judge, Family Court, S.A.S. Nagar, M , Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitione Lea t the titioner inter alia submits that the impugned orde order has been passed on a who wholly incorrect premise. It is submitted that that on the date of passing of the i f the impugned order, the petitioner was not in job a n job as her services had been termina w of rminated. It is stated that in view of the admitted rel ted relationship between the petitioner s the itioner and respondent No.1, it is the duty of respond espondent No.1 to maintain her. Th ns to r. The petitioner has no means to maintain hersel herself. It is accordingly prayed th e set ed that the impugned order be set aside. No other argument has been raised No raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for th I ha d the for the petitioner as also perused the case file in grea n great detail. DIVYANSHI 2024.07.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F) R(F)-917-2024 (O&M) -2 - Perusal of the record of the case Per case shows that the petitioner was married to the r o the respondent on 18.06.1994. Two Two sons and two daughters were born out of their of their wedlock. One son died in an ac accident. Due to marital discord on 19.03 Du ed a 19.03.2016, the respondent filed a petition under S nder Section 13 of the Hindu Marria Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from the petitio petitioner on grounds of cruelty. Th y. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment a ment and decree dated 20.04.2018 w 018 which is stated to have attained finality. In the meantime, on 13.12.2016 In 2.2016 the present petition under Section 125 Cr 25 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petition ters/ etitioner and one of the daughters/ proforma respon respondent herein. Perusal of the peti .P.C. e petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1) 1) reveals that the petitioner had r an er had claimed maintenance for an amount of Rs.15 f Rs.15,000/- p.m. for each of the appl e applicants inter alia on the ground that the respond espondent is a government employee - loyee and earning about Rs.60,000/- p.m. Vide ord de order dated 25.01.2018, interim m p.m rim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m was granted to ted to each applicant. Now vide impu , e impugned order dated 16.04.2024, petition under S nder Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dism en dismissed. The undisputed facts on record ar Th ord are that the respondent-husband is a governmen ernment employee working as a Ga 17, a Gardener in PSIEC, Sector-17, Chandigarh. As rh. As per his salary slip of the year 2 year 2017 (Ex.A-1), he was drawing salary of Rs.31 Rs.31,930/- per month. However, up er, upon leading of evidence, it has also come on r e on record that upto May 2019, the as a the petitioner was working as a helper at the S the SGHS Charitable Hospital, Soh y of l, Sohana on a monthly salary of Rs.9,296/- as ev as evident from her salary slip (Ex. R W2, (Ex. RW3/A) duly proved by RW2, Senior Account ccountant of SGHS Charitable Hospita ospital, Sohana. What has weighed DIVYANSHI 2024.07.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F) R(F)-917-2024 (O&M) -3 - with the learned learned Family Court in passing the sal is the impugned order of dismissal is that in her petit petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. r.P.C. (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had failed to dis to disclose two important factors: a) rs: a) the factum of her employment with SGHS Ch S Charitable Hospital, Sohana; b) - ; b) and the fact that the daughter- proforma respon respondent herein, has been in the ca the care and custody of respondent No.1/husband. band. Admittedly, the petitioner remai 14 to r remained in job from 07.10.2014 to

31.05.2019. As

9. As such on the date of filing petit .P.C. g petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2016, 2016, she was in job and was earning arning hand. However, this fact was not disclosed to osed to the learned Family Court in urt in the first instance. It is also pertinent that R RW3/ the mother of the petitione f the titioner has supported the case of the respondent befo nt before the learned Family Court an urt and has revealed that she is also residing with th with the respondent. Even the secon , second daughter of the petitioner, namely, Jagjot K agjot Kaur RW4 deposed that she did he did not know about whereabouts of the petitione titioner/her mother and that the petit e petitioner did not even attend her marriage. From the above facts it was foun Fro s found that the respondent No.1 is maintaining not ng not just his two daughters and a son d a son but also his mother-in-law. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P Th 5 Cr.P.C. is a social justice measure enacted to pro to protect the abandoned wife, chil children and aged parents from vagrancy and d and destitution. A bare reading of th g of the provision itself reveals that the maintenanc tenance is admissible only to a wife a wife who is “unable to maintain herself”. In the In the present case, it has now been been admitted by the petitioner that she was previou reviously employed. On a Court que urt query as to why she is no longer working, it has it has been stated that the services of t ated. of the petitioner were terminated. However, no or no order of termination has been plac oner. n placed on record by the petitioner. DIVYANSHI 2024.07.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F) R(F)-917-2024 (O&M) -4 - In any event, it ent, it is clear that the petitioner is c rself. er is capable of maintaining herself. No reason has n has been given by the petitioner tioner as to why she is no longer working. At this stage, reference may be ma At n’ble be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in case of “Bhushan Kumar umar Meen v. Mansi Meen Alias Harpreet Kaur Kaur (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id # too, c Id # 547724. In the said case too, the wife albeit lbeit qualified/previously employed, w ngly, , was not working. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court had held that that “However, having regard to qualifications th ns that Wife possesses, there is no r no reason why she ought not to be in a position ion to also maintain herself in fu n future…”, and had accordingly reduced the amo he amount of interim maintenance gran ce granted to the respondent wife. Reference may also be made to jud Re High judgment of the Karnataka High Court in “Smt. Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others V S. & hers Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & Others”, 202 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, L 36, Law Finder Doc # ID # 2260157, where wherein it has been held as under:- “8. The records also disclosed th No.1 was working as is evident from No.1 cross examination also reveals that her m her mother. It is also evident from her desertion she continued to stay i her d her m her mother itself and the allegation d interested to stay with respondent N fact that at the instance of the prese fact t house was taken on rent and now the are residing therein along with her to stay with her mother-in-law and to st an ad admitted fact that respondent provision stores. Further, he is havin of his mother and unmarried sister. A of his was working prior to her marriage marriage she resigned the said job. to why she is incapable of working n to wh idle a idle and seek entire maintenance fro legally bound to make some efforts t can seek only supportive maintenanc can s ed that before marriage petitioner t from her cross examination. Her that she was residing along with om her admission that, even after tay in the rented house along with ion does establish that she was not ent Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted resent petitioner No. 1, a separate the petitioners i.e., wife and child her mother, but she was reluctant t is and unmarried sister-in-law. It is ent No. 1- husband is running aving responsibility of taking care . 1 ter. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 riage and it is asserted that after job. But, there is no explanation as ing now. She is not supposed to sit e from her husband and she is also rts to meet her livelihood and she nance from her husband". DIVYANSHI 2024.07.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F) R(F)-917-2024 (O&M) -5 - lied) (Emphasis supplied) Most importantly, the petitione Mo titioner has admittedly concealed material and re and relevant facts from the learned n’ble earned Family Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in Ram Dhan v. State of U.P Id# f U.P. (SC): Law Finder Doc Id# 352176 has held as held that it is the litigant's duty to ll the uty to make full disclosure of all the facts. The relev relevant findings of the learned Fam 8 d Family Court contained in para 38 of the impugned ugned order are as under:- “As petitioner No.1 has c as come up for the purpose of maintenance and in order to estab stablish the fact that she has been neglected by her husband i.e. prese present respondent, she has to lead cogent and convincing evidence so, nce but she has failed to do so, rather, at the time of filing of pet f petition, there is concealment of fact on the part of petitioner No. No.1 with regard to the fact that petitioner No.2 Amarjot Kaur is re is residing with her father and not with her mother i.e. petitioner N er No.1 and from 07.10.2014 to

31.05.2019, she was working in Sr 31. in Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib, Eye Hospital Trust, Sohana, from wh Ho where she was having monthly income of Rs.9296/- per month. T th. That even no reason has been assigned by her for leaving the job job at Sohana Hospital.” Learned counsel for the petitione Lea titioner is unable to controvert the above said findi findings, and the legal position as dis as discussed above. As such, I find no ground is m As d is made out to interfere in the impugned order order. The present petition is hereby ereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand Pen stand disposed of.

19.07.2024 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Ye Whether Reportable Yes/No ed Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2024.07.24 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document