Balvindar Kaur And Another vs Harisingh

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been filed against the order dated

22/08/2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C. No.200/2016, by which the application filed by the applicant No.1 has

been rejected and the application filed by the applicant No.2, who is the son of the respondent, has been allowed and the respondent has been directed

to pay Rs.10,000/- per month till the applicant No.2 attains majority.

The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking

maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.25,000/- for applicant No.2. It was contended by the applicants in the application

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant No.1 was married to respondent on 12/01/1997 as per Sikh rites and rituals and the applicant No.2 has

born out of their wedlock on 13/10/2000 and on the date of filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., he was 16 years of age and was residing

along with the applicant No.1. It was alleged that after the marriage, the applicant No.1 was discharging her marital duties with utmost sincerity,

however, the behaviour of the respondent remained good for some period of time, but thereafter he started harassing her. The respondent used to

abuse her on trivial issues and he also used to tell her that he does not like her. Whenever the applicants used to demand money for fulfillment of their

daily needs, then the respondent used to abuse them and with great difficulties, he was providing some pocket money to them. Even the respondent

had put a bar on the applicant to go out of the house and even to talk to the neighbours and in fact the respondent had kept the applicant in

confinement and even after the birth of the applicant No.2, the respondent never discharged the duty of a father. However, the applicant No.1

continued to stay in her matrimonial house with a hope and belief that the behavior of the respondent would improve, however, the behavior of the

respondent further deteriorated day by day. Even on earlier occasion the respondent had turned out the applicant no.1 from her matrimonial house, as

a result of which, she had stayed in her parental home at Ratlam along with applicant No.2 and the entire education of applicant No.2 has taken place

at Ratlam. Even at present, the applicant No.1 has been turned out of her matrimonial house and she is still living at Ratlam in her parents home. With

an intention to further demoralize the applicant No.1, the respondent also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family

Court at Ahmadabad, which has been registered as case No.1049/2014 and is still pending, and in view of the reconciliation proceedings, the applicant

No.1 came back to her matrimonial house, but the misbehavior of the respondent and harassment of applicant no.1 continued, as a result of which,

applicant No.1 has been forced to live separately. The respondent is working as a Civil Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Ahmadabad and is earning

monthly salary of Rs.60,000/- and he has also let out a flat and is earning Rs.25,000/- by way of rent and is also earning Rs.30,000/- by doing some

private work. The respondent has also invested lot of money in the share market and property business and is residing in a very posh bungalow and is

living a very luxurious life. Accordingly, the application was filed for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per month to the

applicant No.1 and 2 respectively.

The respondent filed his reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and admitted that the applicant No.1 was married to him on 12/01/1997

at Ahmadabad as per Sikh rites and rituals and the applicant No.2 is the son of the respondent. However, the fact as regards harassment or keeping

the applicant No.1 under confinement was denied. It is further stated that the applicant No.1 herself has deserted the respondent and she is willingly

residing at her parents' home in Ratlam and it was also stated that in spite of the best efforts made by the respondent, the applicant No.1 never came

back to her matrimonial house although the mother of the respondent was seriously sick, but even then she instead of looking after her mother-in-law

and residing in her matrimonial house, was voluntarily residing at her parental home in Ratlam.

The applicant examined herself as PW-1 and one Trilochan Singh as PW-2, whereas the respondent examined himself as DW-1.

The trial court by order dated 22/8/2017 dismissed the application filed by the applicant no.1 and granted monthly maintenance to the of Rs.10,000/- to

the applicant no.2.

Challenging the dismissal of the application of the applicant no.1, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Court below has wrongly held

that the applicant No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient reason and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. It is

submitted that the applicant has specifically stated that the respondent used to abuse her and beat her and he was also uttering un-parliamentary

words for her parents and she was turned out of her matrimonial house in the month of May 2011 and thereafter the respondent never took care of

the applicants. Three months thereafter, the applicant No.1 went to her matrimonial house along with applicant No.2, so that he can meet with his

grandmother, but even then the behaviour of the respondent did not improve and the respondent had also filed a case before the Family Court,

Ahmadabad and in view of the reconciliation proceedings, she had come back to Ahmadabad, but since the behavior of the respondent did not improve

and she was turned out of her matrimonial house after torturing her mentally and from thereafter she is residing at her parents home along with her

mother and father. The respondent is an officer in the Municipal Corporation, Ahmadabad, however, she was not aware of the name of the present

post of the respondent.

Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the applicant No.1 herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she never lodged

any report against the respondent about his misbehaviour. She further admitted that her mother-in-law was seriously ill, but stated that frequently she

was going to Ahmadabad to look after her mother-in-law. She further admitted that her mother-in-law expired on 04/11/2013 and just prior to that she

had gone to Ahmadabad and came back to Ratlam after performing the 13th day ceremony of her mother-in-law. The applicant No.1 did not file any

traveling ticket to show that she had ever gone to Ahmadabad to look after her mother-in-law. She has further admitted that the applicant No.2 is still

visiting Ahmadabad and also use to stay there and also admitted that when the applicant no.1 came back to Ratlam, there was nobody in the house to

look after her mother-in-law. She has further stated that she is residing at Ratlam and is looking after her mother, as there is nobody in the family to

look after her mother. She further admitted that the flat at Ahmadabad is in the joint name of applicant no.1 and respondent and the said flat was

taken on installments, however, denied that an amount of Rs.12,000/- is deducted from the salary of the respondent towards the installments of the

flat. She further stated that in the year 2010 after coming to Ratlam she had merely submitted the admission form for doing BEd course. She further

admitted that the respondent is also arranging for books of the applicant no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

From the evidence, which has been led by the parties, it is clear that in the year 2010 the applicant no.1 came back to her parents home and filled the

admission form for BEd course only, although she has already admitted that she was working as a teacher at Ahmadabad. She has also admitted that

the flat has been purchased by the respondent in the joint name of applicant no.1 as well as the respondent. It is further submitted by the applicant

no.1 that although her mother-in-law was seriously suffering from kidney problem, but she was occasionally visiting her matrimonial house to look

after her mother-in-law. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that even after the death of her mother-in-law, she came back to Ratlam after

performing the 13th day ceremony. She has also admitted that as there is nobody in her home to look after her mother, therefore, she is staying there

for looking after her mother. Another aspect of the matter is that the applicant no.1 has examined Trilochan Singh (PW-2), who has stated that in the

year 2012-13 the applicant no.1 had informed him that as the respondent has illicit relations with a lady residing in his neighbour, therefore, there is a

dispute between the applicant no.1 as well as the respondent. It is further stated by Trilochan Singh (PW-2) that he tried to convince the respondent

and only thereafter, the applicant no.1 was sent to Ahmadabad, where she stayed for some time and because of the dispute between them, there was

an adverse affect on the child and he was becoming aggressive. So far as the illicit relations of respondent with a lady residing in his neighbour is

concerned, the applicant no.1 has neither made such an allegation in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. nor has alleged anything in her

evidence. Thus, it is clear that the applicant no.1 has tried to assassinate the character of the respondent through her witness Trilochan Singh (PW-2),

who is the brother-in-law of the applicant no.1 being the husband of her elder sister. Trilochan Singh (PW-2) has specifically stated that he was told

by the applicant no.1 about the illicit relations of respondent with another lady. Where the applicant no.1 has tried to assassinate the character of the

respondent, then it is clear that the behaviour of the applicant no.1 was cruel towards the respondent. Furthermore, from various admissions made by

the applicant no.1 in her cross-examination, it is clear that the applicant no.1 herself has deserted the respondent and is residing separately without any

sufficient reason.

Considering the evidence, which has come on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court did not commit any mistake in coming

to the conclusion that the applicant no.1 is not entitled to receive maintenance, as she herself is residing separately without any sufficient cause.

Accordingly, the order dated 22/8/2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C. No.200/2016, so far as it relates to rejection

of application filed by applicant no.1, is hereby affirmed.

It is next contended by the counsel for the applicants that the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as awarded by the trial court to the

applicant no.2 is on lower side and considering the monthly income of respondent, it is liable to be enhanced.

The applicant no.1 herself has admitted in her cross-examination that the applicant no.2 frequently visits the house of the respondent and also stays

there. Thus, it is clear that the respondent is also looking after and taking care of applicant no.2. The applicant no.1 has also admitted that the

respondent is also providing some books to applicant no.2. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the respondent has completely neglected the

applicant no.2, but because the applicant no.2 is residing with the applicant no.1, therefore, the respondent is not in a position to maintain the applicant

no.2 in toto. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as

awarded by the court below to the applicant no.2 is perfectly in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the order dated 22/8/2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C. No.200/2016 is hereby affirmed.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.