Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Handa vs Harshit (Minor) Through His Mother ... on 2 December, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. Nos.49006 & 49007 of 2013
and
Criminal Revision (F) No.182 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:2.12.2013
Mahesh Handa
...Petitioner
v.
Harshit (minor) through his mother Shweta and another
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Cr. Misc. No.49006 of 2013:
This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the revision petition. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 6 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.49007 of 2013:
For the reasons mentioned in the application, Annexures.P.1 to P.3 filed along with the application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.11 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Revision (F) No.182 of 2013 [2] Cr. Revision (F) No.182 of 2013:
Petitioner Mahesh Handa has filed this criminal revision petition against respondents Harshit (minor) and Shweta under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Ambala.
As per the averments made in the petition, Shweta wife of the petitioner filed petition on behalf of Harshit (minor) (respondent No.1) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance which has been allowed. As per the averments made in the petition, the main ground for challenging the order is that the petition has been allowed without considering the admitted compromise dated 27.6.2010 entered into between petitioner Mahesh Handa and respondent No.1 Harshit Handa and by not considering the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.20325-M of 2010 on the basis of which aforesaid compromise has been effected. It is stated that respondent No.2 Shweta and petitioner Mahesh Handa entered into a compromise vide which `5.30 Lacs was paid and it was specifically mentioned that she will maintain the child and will not ask for any claim or demand in respect of such child. It is also stated in the impugned order that the wife cannot enter into an agreement on behalf of minor child and, therefore, granted maintenance @ `3,000/- per month.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
In the revision petition, the petitioner has to show any Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.11 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision (F) No.182 of 2013 [3] illegality committed by the Magistrate/Family Court and also to show whether Court has exceeded his jurisdiction or has no jurisdiction in the matter or the findings are perverse and against the evidence or material evidence has not been discussed etc. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has argued only one point that he has already paid lump-sum amount to his wife on 27.6.2010. A copy of the compromise Annexure-P.1 is on the record which itself shows that the birth of minor child has taken place later on. At the time of compromise, wife of the petitioner, who is respondent No.2, was pregnant and as per the compromise even the delivery expenses etc. were taken and respondent No.2 entered into compromise that husband shall not be liable for any claim or demand of the child and the wife shall keep husband indemnify from and against all claims and demands in respect of such child.
It is settled law that the minor has an independent right under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. As per provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. minor child is entitled to maintenance from his father if he/she is unable to maintain himself/herself. It is no where the allegation of the petitioner that the minor child is possessing any moveable or immovable property to maintain himself or the minor child has any source of income to maintain himself. There is no allegation that any amount in the name of minor child has been deposited by way of fixed deposit, out of the amount paid by the petitioner to his wife before the birth of minor child. The wife has no right to bound down the minor child even before his/her birth. The Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.11 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision (F) No.182 of 2013 [4] wife has also no right to enter into compromise on behalf of the unborn child. This compromise is, therefore, against the provisions and spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The minor child i.e. respondent No.1, who has no source of income to maintain himself, is entitled to maintenance. Only `3,000/- per month has been granted by the family Court to maintain the minor child.
I have gone through the grounds of revision petition. Even no where it is stated that this amount is excessive. But, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has only argued that this amount is excessive. Keeping in view the prices of essential goods nowadays, the amount of `3,000/- cannot be held as excessive. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner nor anything is pointed out as to how the order is illegal and which material evidence has not been discussed and as to how the judgment is perverse.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Shail Kumari Devi and another v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 842. I have gone through this judgment. This case having distinguished facts will not apply to the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Shanker Soren v. State of West Bengal, 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Cr.) 184. I have gone through this judgment also. This case having distinguished facts will not apply to the present case as it does not relate to maintenance right of the minor child. Rather, Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.11 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision (F) No.182 of 2013 [5] it is held in this case that divorce by mutual consent does not end the right of divorced wife to claim maintenance.
Therefore, from the above discussion, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition and the same is dismissed. December 2, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.11 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh