Sunil Kumar vs Shobha Devi

Sandeep Sharma, J

Cr.MP(M) No. 2406 of 2019

By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying

criminal revision petition. Mr. Anup K. Rattan, learned counsel for the non- applicant/respondent states that he does not intend to file reply to the

application and has no objection in case, prayer made in the application is allowed.

Averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, clearly reveal that delay in maintaining the accompanying petition is

neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and

as such, same deserves to be condoned.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is

condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Be registered.

Cr. Revision No.9 of 2021

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 13.6.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP, in Criminal Appeal No.

54/2016, having been filed by the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as the “petitionerâ€) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act (in short “the Actâ€), laying therein challenge to order dated 1.12.2016, passed by the learned JMIC Manali, District

Kullu, HP, in case No.16/2014, whereby the complaint under Section 12 of the Act having been filed by the respondent-wife (herein after referred to

as “the respondentâ€) came to be allowed, petitioner-husband has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the

aforesaid judgment/order passed by the courts below.

Precisely the facts, as emerge from the record are that marriage inter-se the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the month of February,

2014. Since respondent-wife was allegedly given beatings by the petitioner-husband and was not provided with the sufficient means to sustain, she

lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, alleging therein that the petitioner besides giving beatings to her also used to harass her constantly on

account of dowry. Respondent-wife alleged that the petitioner after consuming alcohol used to demand dowry from her. She also alleged that the

petitioner tortured her mental and physically and not allowed her to pursue her studies and as such, appropriate maintenance order under Section 20 of

the Act, may be passed in her favour.

Aforesaid petition filed by the respondent came to be resisted on behalf of the petitioner by way of detailed reply, whereby he stated that

respondent is not his legally wedded wife and at no point of time, he caused any harassment to her. He claimed before the court below that petition

has been filed on the false grounds and as such, same may be dismissed. Both the parties in support of their respective contentions led evidence.

Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties allowed the petition filed by the respondent

under Section

12 of the Act and restrained the petitioner from committing any cruelty and acts of domestic violence against the respondent. Besides above, court

below also directed the petitioner to provide accommodation to the petitioner on rent i.e. one room, kitchen, bathroom and toilet or in alternative to

provide accommodation in his own house. In addition to aforesaid, court below while directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of

Rs. 2500/- pm to the respondent-wife from the date of the order, also directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order/judgment passed by the learned JMIC Manali, District Kullu, the petitioner preferred an

appeal under Section 29 of the Act in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

13.6.2017. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set-aside the

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, and order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the learned trial court below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused records of the case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that the claim of the respondent-wife

primarily came to be contested on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, but careful perusal of pleadings as well as evidence

adduced on record by the respective parties clearly reveals that respondent-wife not only successfully proved on record that she is legally wedded

wife of the petitioner, rather was being harassed and tortured by the petitioner.

Respondent-wife while deposing has PW1 successfully corroborated and supported her averments as contained in the application filed under

Section 12 of the Act. She deposed before the court below that after her marriage, she resided with the petitioner in his house at village Sheel, P.O.

Deem, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. and thereafter, she came to Kullu alongwith petitioner-husband to pursue her studies. Besides above,

respondent-wife deposed that she was constantly harassed and tortured by the petitioner under the influence of liquor and was compelled to stay in the

house of her aunt at Kullu. With a view to prove injuries allegedly suffered by her on account of beatings given by the petitioner, respondent tendered

on record her MLC (Mark A). She also stated that petitioner husband had issued notice Ext.PW1/A to her. Cross-examination conducted on this

witness nowhere suggests that the petitioner husband was able to extract anything contrary to what she stated in her examination in chief, rather in

her cross-examination, she categorically stated/reiterated that marriage was solemnized before the SDM Rampur Bushahr and marriage certificate

was issued after the marriage, which is lying with the sister of the petitioner-husband.

Petitioner-husband while deposing as RW1 stated that he used to study at ITI Shamshi, Kullu and cleared his course in the month of June, 2014.

While stating that he does not know the respondent- wife, petitioner claimed before the court below that he used to work in the hotel at Ghaziabad

after having completed his course. In his cross -examination, the petitioner denied his signature on the marriage affidavit Ext.PC. He also denied that

the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in SDM Office, Rampur Bushahr. Petitioner also deposed that he does not know that Sh. Jeewan

Dass is a witness to the affidavit of marriage Ext.PF.

RW2 i.e. Rajeev Singh, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Deem, deposed that he has brought the requisite record Ext.RW2/A. Though petitioner

specifically denied the factum with regard to marriage of him with respondent, but careful perusal of documents Ext.PB, PC, PE and PF clearly

reveals that petitioner and respondent had applied before the Executive Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr for attestation of their marriage affidavit.

Affidavit, if perused in its entirety, clearly reveals that petitioner had accepted the respondent as his legally wedded wife and had also undertaken to

maintain her. Besides above, perusal of legal notice signed by the Ramesh Negi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner-husband clearly suggests that

respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she had resided with the petitioner at village Sheel and thereafter, left for Manali to pursue her

studies. On account of aforesaid evidence, it stands duly established on record that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

Respondent with a view to prove domestic violence placed on record copy of MLC (Mark-A), perusal whereof clearly shows that the respondent

was taken to Civil Hospital, Manali, for treatment by LC Santosh Kumari No. 216 of PS Manali and she had suffered injuries on her body. There is no

evidence worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that the respondent has any kind of income and as such, she being legally wedded

wife of the petitioner is well entitled for maintenance order as has been ordered in the proceedings filed by her under Section 12 of the Act.

Having carefully perused documentary evidence as well as oral evidence adduced on record by the parties to the lis, this court finds no illegality

and infirmity in the impugned judgment/orders passed by the courts below and as such, no interference is called for. Material available on record

clearly suggests that monthly income of the petitioner rightly came to be assessed as Rs. 8,000/- by the courts below and as such, he being husband of

the respondent has been rightly directed to pay sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent from the date of order of compensation. However

having taken note of the fact that the petitioner earns only Rs. 8000/- per month, compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the court below

deserves to be reduced to sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above, order/judgment passed by the courts below is modified to the extent that the petitioner-

husband shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-, however, rest of the order is upheld. Accordingly, the present

petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending application(s), if any.