Sunita v. NIDHI GUPTA

Order

15.10.2024 Vs. (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Naresh Chokkar, Advoc for the petitioner. dvocate Mr. Lekhraj Nandal, Advoca for the respondent. vocate ***** ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J Challenge in the present p nt petition is to the order dated

21.08.2023 pa passed by the learned Principal ipal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak whereby in a p n a proceeding under Section 125 C 25 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed to p to pay interim maintenance of Rs f Rs.57,000/- per month to the respondent fro from the date of filing of the appl application i.e. 28.09.2020 till final decision; along long with litigation expenses of Rs.1 Rs.10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the pe e petitionerinter alia submits that the petitioner oner is not liable to pay the im impugned maintenance as the respondent h t has left the matrimonial home ome of her own sweet will and accord. It is s is submitted that in fact the respo espondent had been pressurizing the petitioner ner to buy a house at Rohtak and and as the petitioner did not have the necessary sary funds to accede to the deman mand of the respondent, she had left the matri atrimonial home along with their eir minor daughter. As such, the respondent ha t had left the matrimonial home wi e without any sufficient cause and SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document therefore, she , she is not entitled to maintena tenance under the provisions of Section 125(4) 5(4) Cr.P.C.

#3. It is further submitted th d that in granting the impugned 7 maintenance, ce, the learned Family Court fa t failed to appreciate that the petitioner wa was running the school in quest uestion in partnership with one Mahesh Sharm harma. As such, out of the sale proc proceeds of the school to the tune of Rs.23,94,00 4,000/-, a sum of Rs.10 lakh was was paid by the petitioner to his partner Mahe ahesh Sharma. It is also submitte itted that the petitioner has no source of reg regular or recurring income. It is It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned ord order be set aside.

#4. Per contra, learned coun counsel for the respondent/wife opposes the p he prayer made on behalf of the pe e petitioner and submits that after filing of the p he present petition, vide order da a r dated 02.11.2023 passed by a Coordinate Be Bench of this Court, of the interim - terim maintenance of Rs.57,000/- per month, p h, payment of maintenance to to the respondent beyond the amount of Rs f Rs.30,000/- was stayed. It is su is submitted that even the said amount has no ent. as not been paid to the respondent.

#5. It is further submitted that that the respondent had suffered an accident in t in the year 2011 as a result of wh f which, she had lost her right arm and had been een rendered 85% disabled. It is s is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner doe does not wish to live with the he respondent, and it is for this reason that th the respondent was turned out of ut of the matrimonial home by the petitioner. It i . It is submitted that the credit entr entries of Rs.23,94,000/- are duly reflected in th in the account statement of the peti petitioner. It was keeping this fact SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document in mind that th at the respondent had been grante . anted the impugned maintenance. 7 It is accordingl ingly, prayed that the present petit etition be dismissed.

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

#8. Perusal of record of the c he case shows that the petitioner was married t ed to the respondent on 10.07.2000 2000. One daughter was born out of their wedlo edlock on 31.10.2001. Petition unde nder Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed

#020. on 28.09.2020

#9. It has not been denied ied by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner tha that the respondent had met with 11 with an accident in January 2011 when she had had lost her right arm, whereafter 5% fter, she has been rendered 85% disabled. It is It is the own case of the petitione tioner that in the year 2014, the petitioner had had sent the respondent along w ng with their minor daughter to Rohtak as the the city had better schooling pros prospects for their daughter than the village wh where the petitioner resided.

#10. It is also the admitted ca d case of the petitioner that the school which ich was allegedly being run by the the petitioner in partnership with one Mahesh esh Sharma, was sold in Decemb cember 2018 for an amount of Rs.23,94,000/ 00/-. Despite repeated Court queri ueries as to the mode of payment or details of t of the payment of Rs.10 lakh state ated to have been made to the said Mahesh S sh Sharma, learned counsel for the the petitioner has been unable to provide any de y details thereof. All that has been i a en informed to this Court is that a cheque No.14 o.143425 for Rs.10 lakh was made ade out in the name of Mahesh SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Sharma. Howe owever, no details have been give given as regards to the bank on 7 which the sai said cheque was drawn nor the . the date of the said cheque etc. Furthermore, re, while passing the impugned or d order, the learned Family Court has examined ned the bank account details of the the petitioner in minute detail, as per which for for the period 15.01.2019 till 1 ill 18.02.2020, there were credit entries to the the tune of Rs.36,86,889/- in the b he bank account of the petitioner with the State tate Bank of India, Kheri Sampla, ne As a, near Railway Station, Rohtak. As per statement ent of account of the petitioner ner with the Indian Bank, for the period 09.10.2 .10.2022 till 18.02.2023, there were were credit entries to the tune of Rs.11,05,089/ 89/-.

#11. It is by now a settled ttled trend that in matters of 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 i ed income of the husband. The tr e truth usually lies somewhere in between. How However, the disparity in the allege lleged income in the present case is somewhat hat extreme. The respondent ca cannot exaggerate to such an extent. It wo would therefore appear that the the petitioner is attempting to conceal his his actual income. In any even event, these are all matters of evidence. The The truth or otherwise of the allega s llegations and counter-allegations made by bot both the parties can only be d be determined upon leading of evidence. As s As such, it is neither desirable no e nor feasible for this Court to interfere at th at this stage, let alone return a find finding in respect of the contrary assertions mad made by either of the parties. SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

#12. For the sake of argumen ment, even if contention of the 7 petitioner wer were to be accepted, the same is l is liable to be rejected in view of judgment of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in “Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC): La ): Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, has has categorically held as follows: – “B. Criminal Procedure Code, aintenance to wife - Plea of husban d had no means to pay cannot be a cuses - Held :- mainte and ha excuse ode, 1973 Section 125 Grant of sband that he was not doing job be accepted - These are only bald (i) If the husband is health position to support himself, he is support his wife. ealthy, able bodied and is in a a he is under the legal obligation to (ii) It is the obligation of the h He cannot be permitted to plead the wife due to financial constrain earning.” - the husband to maintain his wife - lead that he is unable to maintain straints as long as he is capable of

#13. Admittedly, the petitione ioner does not suffer from any physical infirm firmity and is healthy and able bodi bodied.

#14. Even otherwise, the grant s a rant of interim maintenance is a temporary m measureof social justice to he help the abandoned wife and children to tid tide over the difficult period. It is o t is oft-repeated and no longer res integra that S 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 provision contained in Sect be borne in mind that the is to give social justice to parents, etc. and to preven compelling those who can s to support themselves bu support. The provisions in with the ambit and scope of the Section 125 of the Code, it has to the dominant and primary object e to the woman, child and infirm event destitution and vagrancy by can support those who are unable s but have a moral claim for s in Section 125 provide a speedy SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 7 remedy to those women, c who are in distress. The p intended to achieve this sp purpose behind the benev Section 125 clearly is that should not be left in a destitution and starvation en, children and destitute parents he provisions in Section 125 are is special purpose. The dominant enevolent provisions contained in that the wife, child and parents ss, in a helpless state of distress, ion…”

#15. Again, a three-Judge Bench of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vimala (K.) K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)” (1991) 2 1) 2 SCC 375, speaking through Justice Fatima tima Beevi, held as follows: “3. Section 125 of the Co meant to achieve a socia prevent vagrancy and dest remedy for the supply of f the deserted wife...” e Code of Criminal Procedure is social purpose. The object is to destitution. It provides a speedy of food, clothing, and shelter to

#16. 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 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; ; especially keeping in view th the admitted disability of the respondent.

#17. Learned counsel for the p he petitioner is unable to dispute the above said said factual and legal position.

#18. Accordingly, I find no grou ground is made out that calls for interference i ce in the impugned order. As s s such, the present petition is dismissed.

#19. SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of.

#20. However, nothing stated h ed hereinabove shall be construed 7 as an expressi ession of opinion on the merits of th of the matter.

15.10.2024 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2024.10.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document