Jharkhand High Court
Harjyot Singh Malhotra vs Rupsi Kaur Chawla ... ...Opp. Party on 12 April, 2024
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 379 of 2023
---------
(Against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 05 of 2019)
---------
Harjyot Singh Malhotra ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
Rupsi Kaur Chawla ... ...Opp. Party
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Petitioner : Mrs.Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. on 29.02.2024 : Pronounced on 12.04.2023
---------
The instant Cr. Revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 05 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi allowed the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.16,000/- per month to the opposite party from the date of filing the application.
2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the Maintenance Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of wife-Rupsi Kaur Chawla against her husband- Harjyot Singh Malhotra with these allegations that she was married with Harjyot Singh Malhotra on 12.04.2015. After 1 marriage both the parties went for Honeymoon to Europe trip. Her husband and his family members compelled her to ask money for the Europe trip. Indeed, the opposite party and his family members were not satisfied with the gifts and dowry given at the time of marriage and used to taunt her using filthy language. The opposite party during the Europe trip began to torture her physically and continued at Firozabad, Delhi, Europe, Pune and Ranchi. A demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and i-10 car was made. Showing reluctance by the applicant and his family members she was subjected to cruelty. The applicant also felt seriously ill on account of mal-treatment given to her and on 3rd January, 2018 she came to Ranchi and since then she is living at Ranchi with her parents. Since 3rd January, 2018 the Opposite Party did not take care of her. The applicant has no income of her own and is exclusively dependent upon her parents. The opposite party is working in dual charge as a Finance Manager in Hanual Technologies Pvt. Ltd. as a Head Project Development in Veggitech (sister concern of Hanual Technologies) and drawing a salary of Rs.3,50,000/- per month. The opposite party has no other liability except to maintain the applicant. As such the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance was claimed.
3. On behalf of opposite-party the written statement was filed in which the averments made by the applicant in the Maintenance Application are denied and in additional plea it is stated that after marriage both parties went to Honeymoon but the entire expenses 2 of the same was borne by the responding-opposite party. The applicant was never taunted or abused for less dowry and was never subjected to cruelty as alleged. The responding opposite party along with applicant left for Paris from Delhi on 27.04.2015. The moment they reached to Paris, the applicant began to quarrel with the responding opposite party on petty and trivial issues. The entire Honeymoon trip was totally spoiled. In Europe tour they visited several countries of Europe. After the Europe trip the brother of the applicant apologized for the behaviour of his sister. The applicant never tried to co-operate the responding opposite party and his family members on account of her petty and trivial issues. The opposite party also took the applicant to Goa on 24.09.2015 with a hope that some change would come in her but misfortunately the same trip was also wasted over the petty issues raised by the applicant. The applicant has been residing separately from the responding opposite party since 03.01.2018 and she herself left the house of the responding opposite party on account of her own sweet-will and fancies. On the intervening day of 03.01.2018 the respondent was employed at Pune, Maharastra. In course of his usual routine he went to the office and when he came back to his house, he found his wife missing from the Apartment. No positive answer was received by him knowing her whereabouts. On checking the wardrobes and baggage cabinets, the responding opposite party found that the applicant had left the house without informing him. All the jewelries were found also 3 missing from the locker. The responding opposite party was working at Pune, Maharastra with Hanul Technologies Pvt. Limited and had received a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from April 2017 to June-July 2018, but thereafter the company became defunct and company applied for insolvency before the NCLAT and at present the company's name has been struck-off by the Registrar of companies. On account of the aforesaid reasons the responding opposite party has lost his job. At present he is earning 40,000/- approximately and has several obligations such as payment of installment of Home Loan. The applicant is highly educated and possess a Bachelor's degree in computer application and had been pursuing the master's degree in computer application at the time of marriage. She was also working as a teacher at Delhi Public School, Ranchi. She was also employed with Pune Public School during the stay with the responding opposite party at Pune and hence is enough capable to maintain herself. The applicant has been earning 20,000/- rupees per month being a teacher in private school at Ranchi and also out of income from the home tuition. In view of the above prayed to dismiss the Maintenance Application.
4. The learned trial court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the opposite party having sufficient means (i.e. income of Rs. 3.5 lacs per month) neglects or refuses to maintain his wife ?
(ii) Whether the petitioner Rupsi Kaur Chawla is unable to maintain herself ?
4
(iii) Whether the petitioner has been living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason ?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for an order in her favour for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. ?
5. On behalf of applicant in oral evidence examined A.W.1 Rupsi Kaur Chawla and A.W.2 Satmit Singh Chawla.
6. In documentary evidence filed Ext.1 copy of salary slip of January, 2014 and downloaded copy of facebook (Harjyot Malhotra as head of project) (Ext.2 to 2/4).
7. On behalf of applicant affidavit was also filed in regard to her assets and liabilities.
8. On behalf of Opposite party in oral evidence examined O.P.W.1 Harjyot Singh Malhotra and O.P.W.2 Mastan Singh and in documentary evidence filed details of itinerary for Europe Trip (Ext.x), photo copy of complaint given to the Police Superintendent, Gramin, Pune (Ext.A) Profile of the Rupsi Kaur (Ext.Y) and affidavit was also filed on behalf of Harjyot Singh Malhotra in regard to the assets and liabilities for non-agrarian deponent.
9. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions of parties passed the impugned Judgment dated 30.01.2023 in Original Maintenance Case No. 05 of 2019.
10. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment, the instant Cr. Revision has been preferred on behalf of the responding opposite party.
5
11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. The Counsel for the petitioner-revisionist has advanced his submission that he is pressing this Cr. Revision only on the issue that the wife had left the matrimonial house withdrawing herself from the society of the revisionist without any rhyme and reason. As such she is not entitled to maintenance and learned Family Court Judge has not considered this point of determination in proper perspective in the light of the evidence on record.
13. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned Judgment passed by the learned court-below is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and same needs no interference.
14. For disposal of this Cr. Revision the following point of determination is being framed in view of the submissions made by learned Counsel of parties.
Whether the wife has withdrawn herself from the society of her husband without any reasonable cause if so its effect.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-revisionist has submitted that admittedly the marriage was solemnized on 12.04.2015 and his wife stayed with him at the place of his job where she never adjusted with the petitioner or his family members on account of trivial issues. He also took his wife for Honeymoon to the Europe countries and thereto she did not enjoy 6 the Honeymoon rather quarrelled with the revisionist on petty issues. She also left the house at Pune while she was living with the revisionist without having informed him on account of her own will on 03.01.2018 and despite making effort by the petitioner she is not willing to reside with the revisionist.
16. On behalf of opposite party-wife it has been contended by her learned Counsel that immediately after the marriage the wife was taunted for less dowry and further a demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and i-10 car was made and for non-fulfilment of the same she was subjected to cruelty and tortured physically as well as mentally. With these reasons she left the matrimonial house for her parental house and has been residing at Ranchi.
17. On behalf of the husband on this point of determination O.P.W.1 Harjyot Singh Malhotra has deposed that he was married with Rupsi Kaur Chawla on 12.04.2015 and on 27.04.2015 he along with his wife went for Honeymoon to Itlay, France and Sweetzerland. First of all, they reached to Paris whereon the very first night Rupsi Kaur Chawla quarrelled with him on petty and trivial matters. He tried to make her understand but she paid no heed. The itinerary of this Europe tour is in 16 pages filed in this case by him. On 07.05.2015 they came back to Delhi. The information in regard to the behaviour of the wife was given to her parental house and her family accepted that she was not mentally fit and her brother also took her from his house to Ranchi. He brought back his wife from Ranchi to Pune but again 7 her behaviour remained quarrelsome to him. He took her to visit several places just to bring change in her but all effort went for nothing. On 3rd January, 2018 she left the house on account of her own will without having informed him and the information was given of the same by him to the local Police Station. The receipt of the complaint is Ext.A. In cross-examination this witness says that he filed the suit for divorce against his wife in Pune of which case number is not known to him, same case has been transferred to Ranchi which date is fixed therein he is not aware. He never appeared in that case. Whether Rupsi Kaur Chawla has filed any criminal case against him he is not aware. A compromise was held between the parties in a meeting at Firozabad and Delhi in the mid of 2017.
18. On behalf of wife A.W.1 Rupsi Kaur Chawla. In her Examination-in-chief says that after one day of the marriage she was taunted by the parents of her husband for less dowry. A demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and i-10 car was made by her father- in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, brother-in-law and husband as well. She was permitted only to do household work. For three months she lived with her husband at Firozabad and her husband had left for Pune after one week. During these three months her husband came for 15 days for Honeymoon to visit Europe, Itlay, Paris and Venice. Thereto her husband did not behave her properly and quarrelled with her. After coming from Honeymoon, the demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and i-10 car was 8 made. She went to Ranchi with her brother. When she came back to the matrimonial house from Ranchi further she was taunted by the family member of her husband and in June, 2017 she went Pune. She was not properly treated there as she fell ill on account of mal-treatment given to her and she left the matrimonial house on 3rd January, 2018 and has been residing at Ranchi since then. In cross-examination this witness says that during her stay in in-laws house she was tortured by the family members of her husband. She had given the information to this effect in Pune and Ranchi. Date of the same she does not remember. The copy of the same is being filed by her in this case. She lived in her in-laws house for two years. In the meantime, she also went to Pune and Europe as well. Her husband in July, 2018 had filed the suit for divorce against her.
18.1 A.W.2 is Satmit Singh Chawla. In his Examination-in-chief he also reiterated the allegations made in the Maintenance Application but no one appears to cross-examine this witness and the witness was discharged.
19. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it is found that the wife has made allegation in regard to taunting her on very next day of marriage for less dowry and demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and i-10 car was made. But no complaint of the same was ever made by the parties though in her Examination- in-chief A.W.1 Rupsi Kaur Chawla has stated that she had given information to the local Police of Pune and Ranchi yet nothing is 9 brought on record by the applicant wife in this case. Admittedly no case in regard to any demand of dowry or subjecting her to cruelty was ever instituted by the wife against her husband and his family members. On behalf of the husband this plea is being taken that after few days of marriage he took his wife for Honeymoon to Europe countries. The itinerary of the Europe trip in 16 pages has been filed on behalf of the husband which shows that both visited the European countries, Switzerland, Paris, Venice etc. and this fact is also admitted to A.W.1 Rupsi Kaur Chawla. A.W.1 in her statement has admitted that in Europe trip there was quarrel between her and her husband. She nowhere made any allegation that her husband had made any demand of dowry or had taunted her for less dowry during her Europe trip. Further she lived along with her husband at Pune thereto there was quarrel between them on trivial issues. Had there been any demand of the dowry being made by her husband or torturing her for non-fulfilment of the same no complaint to that effect was ever made by the wife to the local Police Station wherever she resided with her husband may that be at Firozabad, Delhi, Pune or Ranchi as well. Admittedly, it was the wife who left the house of her husband while she was residing with him at Pune without giving any information to that effect on 3rd January, 2018. On behalf of her husband the efforts were made to know her whereabouts. Ultimately he came to know that she had left the house without having informed him 10 so he had given the information to this effect to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Gramin. The documentary evidence is Ext. A on record.
19.1 From the evidence on record, it is found that the dispute between the wife and the husband was on trivial issues and on behalf of her husband the several efforts were made to please her wife that is why he took her to visit various places in order to bring change in her nature which was not adjusting to her husband on her part. The act and conduct on the part of the husband taking his wife with him at his several place of job and also to the Europe trip and also visiting at various places shows that it was wife who has left her matrimonial house on 3rd January, 2018 on account of her own sweet-will and there is no reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of her husband on the part of the wife. Accordingly, this point of determination is being disposed of in favour of revisionist against the respondent-wife and consequently in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to any maintenance as claimed. 19.2 Herein it would be pertinent to give the statutory provision of Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C.
"No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."11
19.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Deb Narayan Haldar vrs. Anushree Haldar (2003) 11 SCC 303:
18. From the evidence on record we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate were fully justified as they were based on the evidence on record and appear to us to be reasonable. In her application the respondent had given two reasons for her ill-treatment by the appellant, namely, his greed for dowry and that she was not good-looking. So far as the second reason is concerned, in the course of her deposition, the respondent has not said a word about it. So far as the first reason is concerned, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we have also come to the conclusion that no dowry was ever demanded either before the marriage or after the marriage. Even PW 2, the mother of the respondent had to admit that the appellant had never demanded any dowry or gift. Of course she added that all this was in his mind. We are, therefore, satisfied that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence on record while recording the finding that there was never any demand for dowry by the appellant. There was, therefore, no reason for him to ill-treat his wife for this reason. We, therefore, find that both the reasons given in the application for her ill-treatment are non- existent.
20. We therefore hold that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. We have reached this conclusion after appreciating the evidence on record since there is no discussion of the evidence in the judgment of the High Court. The counsel for the respondent posed before us a question as a part of his submission as to why the respondent should leave her matrimonial home without any reason. In cases where there is a dispute between husband and wife it is very difficult to unravel the true reason for the dispute. After separation when the relationship turns sour, all sorts of allegations and counter- allegations are made against each other. Evidence of contemporaneous nature therefore plays an important role in such cases as it may reveal the thinking and attitude of the parties towards each other at the relevant time. Such evidence is usually found in the form of letters written by the parties to each other or to their friends and relatives or recorded in any other document of contemporaneous nature. If really the respondent was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the manner alleged by her, we have no doubt she would have written about such treatment to her friends and relatives with whom she may have corresponded. The reports allegedly made by her to the police may have thrown some light on this 12 aspect of the matter. Such evidence is completely absent in this case. It appears to us that the parties lived happily for many years after the marriage till about the year 1996, whereafter there was some misunderstanding which ultimately resulted in their separation. Why this happened, it is difficult to fathom, but the evidence on record does not convince us that the respondent was subjected to torture and harassment by the appellant, and certainly not for the reasons alleged by her. The court is not permitted to conjecture and surmise. It must base its findings on the evidence produced before it by the parties. The enquiry by the court is restricted to the evidence on record and the case pleaded by the parties. It is not permissible to the court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case not pleaded by the parties only to answer the query such as the one posed to us.
19.4 In the case in hand the allegation is made on behalf of wife that on the very next day of marriage her husband and his family members taunted her for less dowry and demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and i-10 car was made. This allegation is the bald allegation, same is not proved on behalf of wife by adducing any cogent evidence. The marriage was solemnized on 12.04.2015 and the allegation is that on the very next day she was taunted and subjected to cruelty for less dowry and demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and i-10 car was made, but surprisingly no complaint was ever made either on behalf of wife or by any member of parental house. Even no person of any locality was examined on behalf of wife to prove this fact that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her family members wherever she resided at Firozabad, Delhi and Pune as well.
19.5 To the contrary on behalf of the husband the conduct of the husband taking his wife with him at his place of posting be it may 13 at Delhi or Pune. He also took her to Europe for Honeymoon. He also took her to various places to bring change in her behaviour but it was wife who was quarrelsome to him on trivial issues. The visiting several places along with her husband and Europe trip is also admitted to the wife. As such it is found that it is the wife who has withdrawn from the society of her husband without any reasonable cause.
19.6 Accordingly, this point of determination is being decided in favour of the revisionist against the respondent and in consequence thereof she is not entitled to any maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.
20. Therefore, the impugned Judgment passed by the learned court-below needs interference. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision deserves to be allowed.
21. This Cr. Revision is allowed. The impugned Judgment passed by the learned court-below is set aside. Let the record of the learned court-below be sent back along with copy of Judgment.
(Subhash Chand, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 12.04.2023 P.K.S./A.F.R. 14