Charan Singh vs Harsharan Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

This order will dispose of this criminal revision and Criminal Miscellaneous of No. 5517M/1991 Charan Singh v. Smt. Harsharan Kaur.

The respondent wife (herein) brought an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance, which was allowed by Sh. M.S. Walia, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ludhiana vide his order dated 20.3.90 allowing a maintenance of Rs. 250/ P.M. The petitionerhusband (herein) being not satisfied with the said order, filed Criminal Revision No. 176/13 of 1990, while he respondentwife, also being not satisfied with the quantum of maintenance too, filed Criminal Revision No. 164/3 of 1990 and both these revisions were heard by Sh. V.B. Handa Addl. Sessions Judge Ludhiana who dismissed the revision of husband but allowed that of the wife & increased the amount of maintenance from Rs. 250/ p.m. to Rs. 400/ p.m. The husband has come up in revision to this Court with respect to revision of Smt. Harsharan Kaur allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge and filed the criminal Miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr PC for quashing of the order with respect to the dismissal of his revision by that Court.

The marriage of the parties was solemnised on 21.2.1980. The respondent claims that she was subjected to harassment on account of insufficiency of dowry and maltreated and ultimately turned out of the house in September 1980, by her husband. Thereafter efforts for reconciliation made by Panchayat failed to effect her rehabilitation in the matrimonial home. The petitioner then filed a petition u/s 13, Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of divorce which was dismissed by Sh. Amar Dutt, Addl District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 9.11.83. She, thus, claims that the petitioner had neglected and refused to maintain her inspite of the fact that he had sufficient means to do so. The petitioner is stated to be employed in the Punjab State Electricity Board, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/. The respondent made a prayer for the grant of Rs. 500/ p.m. as maintenance allowance.

In the written statement filed, the petitioner admitted the factum of marriage and further claimed that the parties lived together for only 11/2 months and thereafter it was the respondent who deserted him. During her stay at his house, he had been humiliated by the respondent in presence of friends and she even tried to slap his mother. He admitted the fact of being employed in the Board, but he did not give the exact particulars of his salary. He further claimed that the respondent was gainfully employed in Amar Model School, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana.

The learned Magistrate, after assessing the evidence, found the respondent to be entitled to maintenance and he granted a maintenance of Rs. 250/ p.m. As already indicated above, this amount has been increased by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to Rs. 400/ p.m.

The matter of desertion was gone into by the learned Addl. District Judge in proceedings u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and admittedly, a finding was recorded that the respondent was neither guilty of desertion nor of cruelty. This judgment has become final between the parties. Another petition had been filed by petitioner for divorce, but it was withdrawn. The finding of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge that in fact, the husbandpetitioner was trying to get rid of the matrimonial bonds with the respondent is, thus, well founded. There was no evidence to establish that the respondent was employed as a teacher. The court below had, thus, correctly assessed the right of the respondent to get maintenance from the petitioner who had neglected and refused to maintain her without a sufficient cause.

The petitioner is, admittedly, employed with the Punjab State Electricity Board. He has, however, not disclosed his full emoluments. On a fair guess, he must have been drawing anything around Rs. 1,500/ p.m. in the year 1985. The maintenance amount of Rs. 400/ p.m. fixed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in criminal revision of the respondent cannot be described to be harsh. No reasons are made out for interference in that order.

Sh. K.G. Chaudhary, learned counsel has urged that it would be harsh if the petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance in lump sum and he seeks that concession with respect to that payment may be allowed. I am inclined to allow this prayer of Sh. Chaudhary, especially as after the stay order was issued by this Court with respect to recovery of arrears, the petitioner has been regularly paying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ p.m. As a matter of concession, the petitioner husband will pay the arrears of maintenance in instalments of Rs. 100/ p.m. which amount he shall pay, along with Rs. 400/ p.m. maintenance fixed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge. In case, he commits two defaults either in payment of the amount of maintenance at Rs. 400/ p.m. or of the installments of Rs. 100/ p.m. allowed, the entire amount of arrears shall become recoverable to be paid in lumpsum. It is also stated at the bar that some execution petition for recovery of arrears of maintenance filed by the respondentwife against the petitioner, stood adjourned sine de. The execution petition will remain adjourned till the arrears are recovered.

With these directions, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.

Misc disposed of.