Prithu Ram vs Bhawna Devi

Sandeep Sharma, J

Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with S.482 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 1.6.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2019, titled Prithu Ram vs. Bhawna Devi, affirming the order dated 18.2.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, in case No, 23/III/2016, whereby petition under Ss. 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'Act') having been filed by respondent/complainant (hereinafter, 'respondent') came to be allowed.

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the marriage inter se petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs in the year 2002 and out of their wedlock two issues were born. Till the year 2008, parties to lis lived a happy married life but thereafter, when complainant was in family way, she was allegedly maltreated by her in-laws. Petitioner also accused the respondent of adultery and as such, relations inter se them became sour. In the year 2010, petitioner started running a Dhaba at Telka and under the influence of liquor, repeatedly caused cruelty upon the respondent. Allegedly the petitioner stopped providing maintenance to the respondent and as such, she by way of complaint, as detailed herein above, approached the competent court of law seeking therein maintenance as well as order of residence. Respondent specifically claimed in the complaint before learned court below that the petitioner earns Rs. 60,000/- per month from the Dhaba and agricultural land. Aforesaid claim of the respondent came to be hotly contested and resisted by the petitioner herein, who though admitted his marriage with the respondent but specifically denied factum with regard to maltreatment and cruelty, if any, meted to the respondent by him. Petitioner herein, in his reply, claimed that the respondent had illicit relations with one Mahinder Singh, who stayed with her in rented room. Petitioner also stated in reply that he constructed a double storeyed house and purchased land in the name of respondent. Petitioner further alleged that the respondent started running a fast food shop in the upper storey of his building and of her own volition, left his company, at the instigation of Mahinder Singh. On 18.12.2019, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, while allowing the complaint, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- per month to the complainant as monetary relief. Besides above, learned court below also directed petitioner to pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Learned court below also restrained the petitioner from committing any act of domestic violence against respondent.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under S.29 of the Act before learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 1.6.2019. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for dismissal of complaint filed by respondent after setting aside judgment and order granting maintenance passed by learned courts below.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by learned court below while granting maintenance in favour of respondent this court finds no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned courts below failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective, rather, this court having perused pleadings and evidence adduced on record by respective parties, finds that the respondent has successfully proved on record that she, after her marriage with petitioner, was constantly harassed and maltreated by the petitioner and as such, she was compelled to leave his company.

Though, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned court below without there being any basis arrived at a conclusion that petitioner earns Rs. 60,000/- per month from Dhaba but this court finds from written statement/reply filed by the petitioner that he himself admitted factum of his having owned Dhaba and constructing double storey house. There is no denial if any on his part that at the time of filing of complaint by the respondent, he was not running any Dhaba. Moreover, cross-examination conducted upon respondent nowhere suggests that petitioner herein was able to shatter her testimony to the effect that petitioner earns Rs. 60,000/- per month from his Dhaba. While deposing before learned court below, petitioner admitted in his cross-examination factum with regard to his having owned land measuring 7 Bigha 14 Biswa and 13 Biswansi in Mohal Thaloga, denoted by Khata Khatauni No. 45/58. Besides this, the petitioner also admitted that he inherited ancestral property from his deceased father. Even if aforesaid factum with regard to petitioner's having owned land is ignored, there is no explanation rendered on record by the petitioner qua the source of income, with which he besides setting up Dhaba, raised a two storey building as has been submitted by him in his reply. As per petitioner, he constructed two storeyed building and on upper storey of the said building, respondent started running a fast food shop, meaning thereby that the petitioner herein had sufficient funds but yet he failed to provide adequate maintenance to his wife.

Once, the petitioner has admitted factum with regard to his marriage with respondent, he is under obligation to provide adequate maintenance to the respondent/wife and their children. Interestingly in the case at hand, petitioner leveled bald allegations against respondent that she had illicit relations with Mahinder Singh but said fact never came to be proved in accordance with law and as such, same was rightly ignored by learned courts below.

Since, the petitioner failed to prove on record that respondent has sufficient income, no fault can be found with the order passed by learned courts below granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that in today's scenario one cannot survive with Rs.2,000/- per month, when cost of one LPG cylinder, which is a basic amenity, is more than Rs.1,000/- and as such, it is not understood how aforesaid amount awarded by learned court below is being termed to be excessive by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order granting maintenance passed by learned courts below and same is upheld to that extent. However, this court is of the view that compensation of Rs.30,000/- is on higher side and same is reduced to Rs.20,000/-.

The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms alongwith all pending applications. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated. Any observations made herein above, shall not have any bearing on the merit of any other case pending between the parties in any court of law. Amount, if any, deposited in terms of order dated 30.8.2019, may be released in favour of the respondent by remitting the same into her saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by the respondent to the Registry, within a week.