High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 10 10 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 248 Manju Bala Raj Kumar CR-4551-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 26.03.2025 Vs. ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Petitioner in person. cate Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** CM-11896-CII CII-2023 This is an application unde nder Section 151 CPC for placing on record Ann Annexures P11 and P12. After going through the c he contents of the application, which is supp upported by affidavit of the appli pplicant/petitioner, the same is allowed subje ubject to all just exceptions and A nd Annexures P11 and P12 are taken on recor ecord. MAIN CASE Present petition under Art of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed s ed seeking setting aside of order da he r dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Addi dditional Principal Judge, Famil ich amily Court, Hisar vide which application fil n filed by the petitioner/wife und du under Section 24 of the Hindu SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Marriage Act Act for grant of maintenance pend Page 2 of 10 10 (cid:1) to endente lite has been ordered to ed. be dismissed. 2. The petitioner appearing its ring in person inter alia submits that the app application of the petitioner und du under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act Act for grant of maintenance pende he endente lite was dismissed by the learned Family mily Court primarily on two groun ad rounds: a) that the petitioner had been held no not entitled to maintenance und he under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Famil amily Court; and b) that the petitio of titioner was receiving pension of Rs.2,500/- per per month from the Haryana Gover overnment. 3. The petitioner appearing in he ng in person submits that both the aforesaid grou grounds for rejection of the applicat ant lication of the petitioner for grant of maintenanc nance pendente lite, are unsustain he stainable. It is submitted that the petitioner wa was denied maintenance under S he er Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to the fact that she w he was receiving pension of Rs.2,50 ed 2,500/- per month. It is submitted that however, ver, the learned Court below has f act as failed to take note of the fact that as the sa e said pension which was being re as g received by the petitioner was discontinued v ed vide order dated 21.06.2023 (An he (Annexure P12). In any event, the dismissal of th of the petition under Section 125 C
Legal Reasoning
by 25 Cr.P.C. has been challenged by the petitioner oner before this Court by way of C till of CRR-F-359-2021, which is still pending befo efore this Court. As such, the i on e impugned order is based on incorrect prem aside. remise and deserves to be set aside SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 4. Per contra, learned counse Page 3 of 10 10 (cid:1) nd unsel for the respondent/husband opposes the p he prayer made on behalf of the pe he e petitioner and submits that the respondent is t is a poor labourer earning only R as ly Rs.6,000/- per month; whereas the petitioner oner is a well-qualified lady being nt ing PGDCA B.Ed. The respondent was married t ied to the petitioner barely for 10 of 10 days. No child is born out of their wedlock lock. Moreover, the petitioner w ich r was previously married which marriage was was dissolved with mutual consent w ad ent whereupon the petitioner had received settle ettlement amount of Rs.7 lakh. It he It is accordingly prayed that the present petitio tition be dismissed. 5. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns on ounsel for the petitioner in person and ld. counse unsel for the respondent and given to ven by thoughtful consideration to the rival subm ubmissions advanced on behalf of bo of both the parties. 7. I find no merit in the he the submissions made by the petitioner. Pe Perusal of record of the case sh as e shows that the petitioner was married to th o the respondent on 01.02.2017; a ely ; and they are living separately since 10.02.20 2.2017. No child is born out of th he of their wedlock. Admittedly, the petitioner is a is also qualified being PGDCA B.Ed he B.Ed. This fact is evident from the educational an al and professional qualifications as er s as mentioned by the petitioner in her Affidav idavit of Income, Assets and Liabili he abilities (Annexure P4) before the learned Additi dditional Principal Judge, Family Co nd, y Court, Hisar. On the other hand, as per the Affi Affidavit of Income, Assets and Liab nt Liabilities filed by the respondent SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (Annexure P5 P5), he is BA 1st year and is w Page 4 of 10 10 (cid:1) ing s working as a labourer earning Rs.6,000/- per per month. As per the Affidavit of t er t of the respondent, the petitioner is also giving ing “...tuition of Computer educati me ucation and is getting handsome salary and also also is getting Widow Pension from ing from the Government amounting Rs.2500/- per per month according to online prin ed print of pension ID of concerned nts.”. Departments.”. 8. The petitioner has furthe vit urther admitted in her Affidavit (Annexure P- -4), that she has monthly expens th; penses of Rs.30,000/- per month; that she is ge s getting Rs.2,500/- per month as B , it as Besahara Pension. However, it remains undis ndisputed between the parties tha 23 that vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P1 P12), the Besahara Pension being as eing given to the petitioner has been discontin ontinued. It is also undisputed on is on record that the petitioner is previously ma married to one Bajrang Singla in aid la in the year 2010 and the said marriage was was subsequently dissolved with m ; ith mutual consent after 5 years; whereupon th the petitioner had received Rs.7 la s.7 lakh as settlement amount. 9. Further, it has been he incorrectly submitted by the in petitioner befo before this Court that the petition 25 ion filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dis dismissed as she was receiving pen th. pension of Rs.2,500/- per month. In the said pe id petition the petitioner had alleg ad alleged that the respondent had refused and n nd neglected to maintain her; that tal that she was left at her parental home by the r he respondent and his brother after he after 10 days of marriage; that the respondent is t is impotent; that demand of he of dowry was raised by the SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) respondent an t and his family members. Howeve Page 5 of 10 10 (cid:1) er wever, a perusal of the said order dated 17.09.2 .09.2021 (Annexure P6) shows th he s that the petition filed by the petitioner und under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was of as dismissed as upon leading of evidence by by the parties, all the above sa he e said allegations made by the petitioner we were found to be false. Upon ev he evidence it was found that the petitioner had had left the matrimonial home of lso e of her own free will. It was also found that the t there was no medical evidence to as e to prove that the petitioner was given severe b re beatings by the respondent and of and his family. Even allegations of dowry deman mand were not prima facie estab ald stablished as except for the bald statement of t of the petitioner in this regard the er there was no evidence led by her to substantiat ntiate the same. Medical examina as mination of the respondent was carried out as t as per which he was not found to ve d to be impotent. From the above evidence, the the learned Family Court conclude eft luded that the petitioner had left the matrimon onial home of her own accord, an led d, and was therefore, not entitled to maintenanc nance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. It is also undisputed on re as n record that the respondent has been acquitted itted by the learned Judicial Magist gistrate, 1st Class, Hisar vide order er dated 17.02.2 02.2025 in case FIR No.116 dated nst ted 13.05.2017 registered against him by the pe e petitioner under Sections 323, 40 ice , 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station Uklana lana. 11. Reasons given in the impu 22 mpugned order dated 10.08.2022 are as follows: ows: - SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) “9. The present petition has been Page 6 of 10 10 (cid:1) nst been filed by Manju Bala against her husband Raj Kumar under Sec ge r Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the m of he marriage by way of decree of divorce. The marriage between th as en the parties to the petition was solemnized on 01.02.2017 as per es. s per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is admitted fact that no child w ck. hild was born out of this wedlock. The parties have also admitted th ing ed this fact that they are residing separately for the last several yea ed l years. The applicant has claimed to be unemployed and fully d nts lly dependent upon her parents whereas a perusal of her bank ac ets nk account and affidavit of assets and liabilities reveals that she is g - e is getting pension of Rs. 2,500/- per month in her account. Th the t. The averments made by the applicant regarding the income o en me of the respondent are not even prima facie proved. Moreover, th on er, the respondent has placed on record copy of order passed by t der by this Court in a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. wherein of ein she was declined relief of maintenance as she has left the m wn the matrimonial home of her own without any sufficient reason or e ing or excuse. The applicant is having pension income, therefore, it can ble cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, is gly, the application in question is hereby dismissed. However, the to the applicant is held entitled to one time litigation expenses t . es to the tune of Rs. 5,500/-.
Decision
Application is disposed of accordin ordingly.” 12. No doubt, the petitioner ny oner is no longer receiving any pension. How owever, given the fact that the p ery e petitioner is admittedly a very well-qualified fied lady being PGDCA B.Ed.; and h at nd has admitted in the Court that she is not inva invalid; and has also admitted tha as that she is not working; and has SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) also admitted tted that she has no other responsi Page 7 of 10 10 (cid:1) ut onsibilities as there is no child out of the wedloc lock; it has also been admitted b as d by the petitioner that she was previously tak taking tuitions and was teaching in no ng in Oxford School; therefore, no valid reason is n is made out as to why the petition titioner has chosen not to work.. 13. In these above facts, r to s, reference may be made to judgment of t of the Karnataka High Court in “Sm ers Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others Vs. Gurumanju anjunatha A.S. & Others”, 2023 SC er 3 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260 260157,wherein it has been held as ld as under:- “8. The . The records also disclosed that bef o.1 t before marriage petitioner No.1 was w as working as is evident from her oss her cross examination. Her cross examin amination also reveals that she w her he was residing along with her mothe other. It is also evident from her ad her er admission that, even after her deserti sertion she continued to stay in the her n the rented house along with her mothe other itself and the allegation doe ot does establish that she was not interes terested to stay with respondent Nos act t Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fact that a at at the instance of the present ate sent petitioner No. 1, a separate house use was taken on rent and now th ild the petitioners i.e., wife and child are res e residing therein along with her mo to r mother, but she was reluctant to stay w ay with her mother-in-law and u is nd unmarried sister-in-law. It is an adm admitted fact that respondent ing ent No. 1- husband is running provisi ovision stores. Further, he is having r of ving responsibility of taking care of his mo mother and unmarried sister. Adm . 1 . Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was w as working prior to her marriage ter age and it is asserted that after marria arriage she resigned the said job. B as b. But, there is no explanation as to why why she is incapable of working no sit g now. She is not supposed to sit idle an le and seek entire maintenance from lso from her husband and she is also SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) legally gally bound to make some efforts to Page 8 of 10 10 (cid:1) he rts to meet her livelihood and she can see n seek only supportive maintenance ance from her husband". 13. Reference may also be ma urt made to judgment of High Court (Emphasis supplied) d) of Delhi in “An “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rinku Dahiya” 79, a” Law Finder Doc ID # 2349279, wherein it has has been held as under:- “11. We observe that in the pr the e present case, where both the spouses are equally qualified and im and are earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted t of ted to the wife under Section 24 of the Act. The object of Section 24 at n 24 of the Act is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedi rty ceedings under HMA either party should not be handicapped and to nd suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity he ucity of source of income. The provision for interim/pendent lite de t lite maintenance has been made only to help either spouse to ion e to sail through the litigation expenses and also to ensure tha - e that they are able to live com- fortably. The proceedings under S fo ot der Section 24 of the Act are not intended to equalize the income o ive me of both the spouses or to give an interim maintenance which is n a ch is commensurate to maintain a similar life style as the other spo by r spouse as has been observed by this Court in the case of K.N. V. 18 N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/2018 decided on 12.02.2019.” d) (Emphasis supplied) 14. In similar circumstances, t in es, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Bhus hushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Me )”: Meen Alias Harpreet Kaur (SC)”: Law Finder D er Doc Id # 547724, has held that to that “However, having regard to SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) qualifications t ons that Wife possesses, there is no Page 9 of 10 10 (cid:1) to is no reason why she ought not to be in a position sition to also maintain herself in fut en n future…”. Similar view has been taken in cas case of “Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kau Id# Kaul (SC)”: Law Finder Doc Id# 183207. 15. It is my considered view th uty w that it is first and foremost duty of the petiti etitioner to maintain herself. Th he The ennoble purpose of the maintenance p ce provisions is not to spawn idle ire idle wives, and to foist the entire burden upon t on the hapless husband; but is to p ho to protect abandoned wives who are unable to e to maintain themselves from vag he vagrancy and destitution. In the present case, t se, that is not so. 16. Furthermore, under Secti ge ection 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintena tenance pendente lite is payable to ial le to a spouse during matrimonial proceedings w gs when a spouse lacks the inde ort independent income to support themselves. s. In the present case, during the gs the pendency of the proceedings under Section tion 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, ad ct, admittedly, the petitioner had been receiving iving pension; which has been disc ide discontinued only thereafter vide order dated 21 d 21.06.2023. 17. 18. 26.03.2025 Sunena In view of the above, prese resent petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 10 of 1010 (cid:1) SUNENA 2025.04.01 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)