Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar vs Sudesh Devi And Others on 4 March, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-18281 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18281 of 2011
Date of Decision:04.03.2013
Ravi Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Sudesh Devi and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate,
for Mr.Jitender Nara, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Sudesh Devi and her sons(respondents), the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed her husband-petitioner Ravi Kumar son of Ram Kumar, to pay a sum of `3,000/- per month to his wife and `2,500/- each to his sons as maintenance, by means of impugned order dated 04.03.2010(Annexure P-1).
2. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband, was dismissed as well by the District Judge, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 28.01.2011(Annexure P-2).
3. The petitioner-husband still did not feel satisfied and CRM No.M-18281 of 2011 2 preferred the present 2nd revision petition(which is otherwise legally barred) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to challenge the impugned order/judgment(Annexures P-1 and P-2).
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents is on excessive side, so, the present petition deserves to be accepted, lacks merit.
6. As is evident from the record that, the trial Court after taking into consideration the facts that, the wife has no independent source of income, to maintain herself and her two school going minor sons, the petitioner-husband is residing with his second wife at Delhi after deserting the respondents and the evidence brought on record by the parties, partly accepted the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents(wife and her children), in the manner depicted here-in- above, by way of impugned order dated 04.03.2010(Annexure P-1).
7. Not only that, the matter was again re-examined and the Revisional Court negated all the pleas of the petitioner-husband, now sought to be urged and dismissed the revision petition filed by him through the medium of impugned judgment dated 28.01.2011(Annexure P-2), which in substance is as under:-
"12. Therefore, in these circumstances, though the revision petitioner has denied the fact that he is doing the business of finance but in my opinion, learned trial court rightly disbelieved his stand. If he would have no source of CRM No.M-18281 of 2011 3 income, he would have not decided to settle at Delhi with his second wife and after deserting the respondents.
13. Though, Smt.Kitabo Devi, the mother of the revision petitioner had transferred a plot of 225 sq.yards in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 in a family settlement as mentioned in document, copy of which is Ex.R7. In the same way, Siri Kishan, the brother of the revision petitioner, being his general attorney, has transferred seven kanals land situated at Jhajjar in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 vide document, copy of which is Ex.R8. But these documents do not help the revision petitioner in any manner because from these documents, it is not clear that respondents are getting any income from the land and the plot and that income is sufficient for the maintenance of the respondents.
14. Though, Siri Kishan, the brother of the revision petitioner being his general attorney, sold a plot worth Rs.5,20,000/- to respondent No.1 vide sale-deed, copy of which is Ex.R9. But this fact also does not dis-entitle the respondents from claiming the maintenance from the revision petitioner. If this document is believed, then it would go to show that the revision petitioner did not transfer the plot in favour of respondent No.1 for the residence of the respondents, free of costs, rather he sold the same to respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 purchased this plot, it does not mean that she had her own source of income. She might have borrowed the amount from her parents or relatives with a view to settle her life as well as the life of her children who have been neglected by the revision petitioner."
8. Learned counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order/judgment (Annexures P-1 and P-2).
9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have analyzed the matter in the right perspective, negate the claim of the petitioner-husband and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction. Such impugned order/judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be interfered with by this Court, in the instant second revision petition,(which is otherwise legally barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.), in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same are illegal, CRM No.M-18281 of 2011 4 perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order/judgment(Annexures P-1 and P-2) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
March 04, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE