Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Kumar Bakhri vs Manju Bakhri on 6 January, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM NO.M-567 OF 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO.M-567 OF 2012(O&M)
DECIDED ON: 06.01.2012
Jagdish Kumar Bakhri ......Petitioner
Versus
Manju Bakhri ........Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present:- Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J(ORAL) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.9.2011 (Annexure P7), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal challanging the order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P5), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Faridabad, awarding a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month to the respondent, was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Manju Bhakri, respondent presented an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestice Violence Act, 2005 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) before learned Judicial CRM NO.M-567 OF 2012(O&M) 2 Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, wherein she averred that the domestice incident report dated 3.10.2008 submitted by the applicant to the local police be considered. In that report, she had alleged that she was wife of Jagdish Bhakri, resident of House No.1383, Sector 8, Faridabad, who had been harassing and torturing her since long. Jagdish Bhakri had refused to maintain her and gave beatings to her several times. The police had initiated proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against him. At that time, he had assured that he would not torture Manju Bhakri and would pay her substantial amount every month for household expenses and would not disturb her peace. He would also provide all amenities to her.However, he continued with his misdeeds in spite of assurance.
In the application, it was averred that Jagdish Bhakri had retired from the post of Manager from Bank of Baroda and getting pension approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. It was further alleged that he had sought voluntarily retirement and had received approximately Rs.17,00,000/- in lump sum, which he deposited in the bank. He is getting interest thereon approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. It was further alleged that Jagdish Bhakri, after retirement, had jointed a private job and his total earnings were Rs.30,000/- per month. On the other hand, Manju, Bhakri was a household lady having no source of her income and was fully dependent upon the petitioner. It was also averred that a petition under Section 125, Cr. P.C and a civil suit were pending between the parties.
The allegations levelled in the application were denied by Mr. Jagdish Bhakri, petitioner.
CRM NO.M-567 OF 2012(O&M) 3
After considering the material on record and keeping in view the fact that Jagdish Kumar Bhakri, was getting pension of Rs.9,545/- per month, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, directed him to pay Rs.4,500/- per month to Mrs.Manju Bhakri, however, it was clarified that as the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C were pending against Jagdish Kumar Bhakri, Mrs. Manju Bhakri could get maintenance either under the impugned application or under the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C, The copy of the order was ordered to be supplied to the Protection Officer and SHO Police Station having the local jurisdiction for compliance of the same.
Petitioner, Jagdish Kumar Bakhri, approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide Crl.A.No.73 dated 3.8.2010, which was dismissed on 15.09.2011.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgment dated 15.9.2011(Annexure P7), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, and the order dated 07.07.2010 (Annexure P5), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 12 of the Act has not been complied with and as such the judgments, Annexure P7 and P5, are liable to be set aside.
According to him both the Courts below have failed to consider the proviso appended to Section 12 of the Act CRM NO.M-567 OF 2012(O&M) 4 which provides that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate would take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
The proviso to section 12(1) of the Act contains the words " shall take into consideration any domestic report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider." Use of the term 'any' implies that if the domestic incident report is submitted by the Protection Officer or the service provider then such a report shall be taken into consideration prior to passing any order. However, at the same time, if no domestic report is received in the Court, then in such eventuality, there is no bar for the Court to pass an order u/s 12 of the Act. Bare perusal of Section12 of the Act would signify that it is not mandatory for the Court to call for domestic incident report on each and every date of hearing, before passing any order.
Therefore, to my mind, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not obligatory on the part of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Faridabad to call for the domestic incident report or a report from the service provider before passing the order Annexure P5.
I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments, Annexure P7 and P5, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, and learned Judicial Magistrate Ist CRM NO.M-567 OF 2012(O&M) 5 Class, Faridabad, respectively, and as such the present petition is dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE 06.01.2012 mamta