Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Chugh vs Sudha on 25 April, 2017
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CR No.2847 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.2847 of 2017
Date of decision: 25.04.2017
Sanjeev Kumar Chugh
... Petitioner
Vs.
Sudha
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL)
Present revision petition, at the hands of husband, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the learned matrimonial Court, whereby application moved by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), during pendency of the divorce petition filed by the husband, was allowed granting an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month to each son of the parties, total Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for two children of the parties to this litigation.
Placing reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Akella Rama Murthy s/o A. Thimmaya Shastry Vs. Akella Sitalaxmi w/o A. Rama Murthy, 2005 AIR (A.P.) 497, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 24 of the Act, it would be only the wife and not the children 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:15 ::: CR No.2847 of 2017 -2- would be entitled for maintenance from the husband. He also submits that petitioner is not earning sufficient income to pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to both of his sons and the impugned order is liable to be modified, reducing the amount of maintenance.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month for two school-going children is not at all on higher side, the learned matrimonial Court was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.
So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute about the observations made therein. However, on close perusal of the cited judgment, it has not been found of any help to the petitioner, being distinguishable on facts. It is settled proposition of law that peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of even one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundrao Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533, Union of India Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda and others, 2004 (3) SCC 75, State of Orissa Vs. Md. Illiyas, 2006 (1) SCC 275 and State of Rajasthan VS. Ganeshi Lal, 2008 (2) SCC 533.
With a view to avoid repetition and also for the sake of brevity, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 and 12 of its later judgment in Ganeshi Lal's case (supra), reiterating its earlier view taken in 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:16 ::: CR No.2847 of 2017 -3- Amrit Lal Manchanda's case (supra) and Mohd. Illiyas's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"11. "12....Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well- settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates; (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996 (6) SCC 44). A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more.
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:16 ::: CR No.2847 of 2017 -4- The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. Coming to the peculiar fact situation obtaining on record of the present case, it is unhesitatingly held that learned Permanent Lok Adalat discussed, considered and appreciated each and every relevant aspect of the matter, before passing the impugned award. The only endeavour made by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat was to do complete and substantial justice between the parties and this approach adopted by learned Permanent Lok Adalat has been found well justified on facts as well as in law. Ed. See State of Orissa Vs. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 at p.282, para 12.
12. 15....Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:16 ::: CR No.2847 of 2017 -5- construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: (AII ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge."
16. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said (at All ER p.297g-h), "Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in Shepherd Homes Ltd. V. Sandham (No.2) (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: (AII ER p. 1274d-
e) "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:
(AII ER p. 761c) "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:16 ::: CR No.2847 of 2017 -6- enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."
17. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT, AIR 1962 SC 680 "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
"Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it Ed. See Union of India Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda, (2004) 3 SCC 75, pp. 83-84, paras 15-18."
It also goes without saying that in these days of sky-rocketing 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:16 ::: CR No.2847 of 2017 -7- prices, nothing could be more reasonable than an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month for each child, one of whom is studying in 11th Class and second is studying in 7th Class. In fact, this amount would certainly be not sufficient to meet the expenses, which must have been incurred by the respondent-wife on the education of both the sons of the parties. The excess amount will have to be borne by the respondent-wife herself.
Further, the petitioner, being father of both the sons, would be paying this most reasonable amount as monthly maintenance for his sons and not to any stranger. It is his moral duty as well as legal obligation to maintain his minor children. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned matrimonial Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No ground for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ]
25.04.2017 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2017 10:28:16 :::