On December 23, 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High, while dismissing a petition filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, granting maintenance to the wife, observed that filing a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. after a long gap of 13 years from the time of receiving Lump Sum Alimony, was not a misuse of the process of law.
Brief Facts:
Respondent No. 1, Rashmi, got married to petitioner, Sunil, on 10.09.1983 according to the Hindu Rites. Out of this wedlock, they had two children; son, Karan and a daughter, Kanika. Due to some matrimonial disputes, the petitioner filed a divorce petition against his wife, which was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter, an application with a claim of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance per month was filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondents. It was alleged that respondent no. 1 was employed in Army Public School, Pathankot and was getting salary of Rs.17000/- per month but she was unable to maintain herself and her daughter. She was residing in a rental accommodation and a huge amount was spent on electricity, water, conveyance, maintenance and other expenditure. Her daughter was a medical student and was not earning. She was bearing the expenditure of fee, lodging and boarding of her daughter. The expenditure was allegedly around Rs.25,000/- per month. It was further alleged that the petitioner was running a shopping centre of readymade garments under the name of 'Kanika Shopping Centre', a hotel 'Jewel', and also had a rental income. Therefore, he was earning more than Rs.1 lac per month.The abovesaid application was opposed by the petitioner by objecting that as per the agreement between them, he gave Rs.3 lacs towards past, present and future maintenance to his wife and two children. He further claimed that Kanika Shopping Centre was under the loan to the tune of Rs.25 lacs and he had sold the same to his brother who had liquidated the said loan and there was no such hotel namely, ‘Jewel’. Moreover, there was no such income. In fact, his monthly income was not more than Rs.6000/- per month.
The said application filed by the respondents was declined, thereafter, they filed a Criminal Revision which was accepted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge Pathankot and the case was remanded back to the learned Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot again dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents again filed a Criminal revision which was accepted and the respondent no. 1 was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month. Hence, giving rise to the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings given by the court were contrary to the evidence and the documents produced on record. A written compromise was done between the parties wherein the petitioner deposited Rs.1 lac each in favour of Rashmi wife, son and daughter as full and final settlement of claim regarding their past, present and future claim of maintenance along with Rs.1500 per month as rent. The petitioner had fully complied with the said terms and conditions of the compromise and the filing of present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was a misuse of the process of law. He further contended that respondent no. 1 was earning salary more than her husband. Therefore, the petition filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 22.03.2007 was not maintainable as she was employed as a teacher. This aspect of the case had been totally ignored by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment. Moreover, he pointed out that there was no convincing evidence on record to establish the income of Sunil Sachdeva to justify the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to Rashmi.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel submitted that the respondent was an old lady who looked after her two children by working as teacher in Army Public School, Pathankot. In order to run her household affairs, she did her B.Ed after the matrimonial dispute and took a job in the school. She would not get any pension after her retirement. Her son was married and was living with his wife in Singapore. Her daughter was also preparing for M.D. and was not earning anything. The counsel further added that the petitioner was under an obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of her.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that it was not possible for a lady and her two children to survive in a meager amount of Rs.3 lacs which was given to them by the petitioner in pursuance of an aforesaid compromise. Therefore, Rashmi was justified in filing the present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance to look after her unmarried daughter as well as for her own survival. She was to look-after their daily expenditure, food, clothing, transportation, medical expenditure as and when required, and other social obligations. Therefore, on the basis of compromise dated 7.8.1983, it cannot be said that Rashmi could not file petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after a long gap of 13 years or the filing of this petition was misuse of the process of law.
The court further added that the petitioner in order to avoid his responsibility to pay the maintenance had tried to explain that he had sold his entire business to his brother. Under these circumstances, the Income Tax Returns produced by the petitioner in this case could not be looked into for assessing his income. Rather, the aforesaid facts clearly indicated that Sunil Sachdeva was a businessman with different sources of Income. The court at last observed that respondent no. 1 was 62 years old and was already retired, and needed money for her survival.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was dismissed and the maintenance granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pathankot at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month was not interfered with.
Case Title: Sunil Sachdeva Vs. Rashmi and another
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Amarjot Bhatti
Case No.- CRM-M-5732 of 2017 (O&M)
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Ayush Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. R. D. Sharma
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
0 Comments