Sunil Kumar vs Reena Devi

Anoop Chitkara, J

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:

Trial Court Case Number

CR.MA No.197-IV/2012, decided on 15.10.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi.

Criminal Revision before Sessions Court.

No.16/15(19/14) decided on 20.2.2015, by learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Mandi, Camp at Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

The petitioner's wife had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, seeking monthly maintenance from the petitioner-husband. In the application, she averred that they had solemnized marriage on 30.4.2007, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born.

The respondent-wife alleged that after one year of her marriage, her husband Sunil Kumar, started maltreating her. She reported the matter to the police on numerous occasions, however, every time, the matter was compromised. Her husband also demanded dowry from her and a case under Section 498-A was filed by the wife. She further stated that her husband has passed M.Sc., and is working in a school. On this, she claimed maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her and same amount to her daughter. Given such behavior and the absence of financial support, it became impossible for her to reside with him in his house. Consequently, she was forced to shift to the house of her father, where the petitioner Sunil Kumar neither paid visit nor gave any money.

The husband filed a reply admitting the marriage and the birth of a daughter. However, he stated that the wife left his home without any rhyme and reason. During her stay she would cause mental cruelty. She further stated that she herself is a post graduate and B.Ed., and is working in a school.

Vide above captioned order dated 15.10.2014, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., has allowed the petition and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- i.e. Rs.1500/- each to the wife and daughter.

The husband challenged the said order by filing criminal revision in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Mandi. Vide above captioned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not find merits in the petition and dismissed the same.

Challenging both the orders, the husband is now before this Court by filing the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the respondent-wife is herself a post graduate and is doing the job. Furthermore, the petitioner-husband does not have any gainful income from the land, which is one of the basis for grant of annual maintenance.

On the contrary, Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate argued that the maintenance amount is too meager and the life has become so expensive to live. It is difficult for the petitioner and her daughter to sustain.

The contents of the wife's application, which is supported by her affidavit, prima facie make out just grounds for the wife to live separately and that she could not sustain financially, making out a case for maintenance.

There is neither any illegality nor the maintenance beyond the petitioner's means; as such, there is no merit in the present petition.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails to make out a case. However, this order shall not prohibit any of the parties to seek legal remedies under Section 127 CrPC in accordance with law.

Petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also closed.