Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 08.07.2025 vs Ajay Kumar on 8 July, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
2025:HHC:22063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Rev. (FC) No. 36 of 2025
.
Date of decision: 08.07.2025
Raju Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Kumar ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has not only been dismissed with costs but the petitioner has been found giving false evidence and accordingly the Sub Divisional Officer (C) and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sarkaghat have been directed to proceed against him on the basis of the Court's observations. And lastly, the petitioner has been held not to be entitled to disability pension and aggrieved thereby has filed the instant revision petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is father of the respondent, had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. raising therein;
::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 2
2025:HHC:22063
(i) that he is a poor person and having no source of income to meet out his day to day needs, .
(ii) he is suffering from mental ailment and taking treatment from Himachal Hospital of Mental Health and Rehabilitation, Shimla since 2016, Whereas the respondent is an able bodied person and having sufficient means and working as hawker and earning there from Rs. 15,000/- per month and has no liability to maintain any other person, therefore, he be directed to maintain the petitioner, so as to ensure that he does not lead a life of destitute.
(iii) The respondent is legally liable to maintain the petitioner who is his father, and has been neglected and refused to maintain and he be directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
3. The respondent contested the petition by filing reply in which preliminary objection regarding maintainability was taken. The respondent submitted that he was undergoing training and, thus, had no source of income. He further submitted that he, in fact, had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sarkaghat, who was pleased to pass an ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:22063 order or maintenance of Rs. 1000/- in his favour vide order dated 16.12.2011, when the respondent was a minor. Even now, the .
respondent is under training and has no source of income at all and he is struggling for existence.
4. It was averred that the petitioner on the other hand is not a poor person but has landed property at Sarkaghat, which has been attached for payments of maintenance to the wife of the petitioner and for the maintenance of the respondent and his brother.
5. It was also averred that the petitioner was having one car and one scooter in his name and was doing the business of manufacturing flower pots (Gamla) and tiles and earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month and having sufficient income to maintain himself as wells as to pay the maintenance to the mother of the respondent and his minor brother. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, had kept a concubine at Sarkaghat and was maintaining her but had been creating trouble as regards the maintenance to the mother of the respondent and the minor brother of the respondent.
6. It was further averred that it was the brother of the respondent who was suffering from mental ailment and taking treatment from hospital, whereas the petitioner is hale and hearty and in a sound mind and had been coming to the Court ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:22063 for giving maintenance and statement in the Court while filing the application. The petitioner had not supported the respondent .
either in his study or training and it was wrong that the respondent was working as hawker.
7. It was also averred that the respondent was undergoing training in Government Industrial Training Institute Bhadrota in trade of COPA and had no source of income.
8. Lastly, it was averred that it was only in terms of the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the learned ACJM, Sarkaghat, in Domestic Violence, whereby one room of RCC construction with kitchen and bath-room had been provided to the mother of the respondent wherein the respondent had been living but even there the petitioner had raised a wall in front of the said room and in the varandah and had put the bed of his brother, who is suffering from mental disease.
9. Rejoinder was filed reaffirming the averments made in the petition, while denying the averments contained in the reply.
10. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat after hearing the parties and going through the documents as well as oral evidence led by the parties, not only dismissed the application but passed the above-stated order. ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 5
2025:HHC:22063
11. It is vehemently contended by Shri Ajay Chandel, learned Advocate that the learned Court below has failed to .
appreciate that though the petitioner had been carrying the business of manufacturing of flower pots (Gamla) and had also taken loan in the year, 2008 for the same and was also paying maintenance allowance awarded by the Court below to the wife and children but he himself had been suffering from mental ailment due to depression which started in the year, 2016 for which he had been issued a disability certificate dated 08.08.2018. However, subsequently vide another certificate dated 05.01.2024, the petitioner had shown sufficient improvement and there was no active symptom of above said illness (depressive disorder), whereas the respondent was working as a hawker and at the same time working as a Munshi, therefore, he was duty bound to maintain the petitioner. He further contended that the findings recorded by the learned Court below were based on complete misreading of the oral and documentary evidence and thus, liable to be set aside. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner has not given any false evidence, which is punishable under Section 191 of the IPC. However, we find no merit in such contention.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court more than one and half decades back while commenting upon the abuses of the process ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:22063 of law in Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, had observed as under:-
.
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
13. As regards the award of maintenance, it needs to be noticed that the petitioner had claimed that he is old and suffering from mental disability, so he cannot earn for himself. While stepping into the witness box, the petitioner tendered his ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:22063 evidence Ext. AW/1 in support of his claim, reaffirming the averments made in the petition and in his examination-in-chief.
.
However, in cross-examination, the petitioner stated that the photographs of the shop in the name and style of 'Raju Gamla Wala' was the same for which he had taken the loan. The petitioner admitted that in the year, 2008 he had taken loan under the Prime Minister Guarantee Employment. He further admitted that he had Scooter (Chetak) bearing No. HP 28A 1149. He also admitted that his wife was having 50% disability. He further admitted that when the children were minor, all of them, had instituted a case against him for maintenance and had been granted the same. He admitted that the execution of such proceedings were still pending in the Court. He further admitted that he owned 12 biswas of land, which was abutting the highways. The petitioner claimed that he was suffering from depression and was getting pension for this mental handicap and now he was fit. He also stated that he had accounts in the UCO Bank and Cooperative Bank. He admitted that he was earning from the gamla shop. The petitioner further admitted that he had given an affidavit that he is unemployed and that he has no income. He admitted that he had paid back the loan amount in its entirety. The petitioner further admitted that he had claimed himself to be mentally ill in the petition filed by him. Further he ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:22063 admitted that he had sold 5 biswas of land for Rs. 5,00,000/- in the year, 2024. He also admitted that his mother too had sold .
the land and in addition thereto getting Rs. 17,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- pension. He admitted that his son had studied in Navodaya Vidalaya, but denied that he had not paid for his education so that he could not do well in his life. He admitted that both his two sons, his wife and daugher in law stay in the same room as given to them by virtue of Court order. The petitioner admitted that he was carrying a new construction, which was on the floor of the old house. He denied that his son is unemployed and volunteered to state that he was working as a Munshi. However, he could not state anything regarding the respondent having responsibility and liability of his younger brother and his mother, he volunteered to state that his wife was working as Multi Task Worker.
14. The respondent on the other hand examined himself as RW1 and stated that he is living in one room accommodation with his mother, wife and brother, which had been given to them on the intervention of the Court. It had one room and one kitchen. RW1 stated that he is 10+2 and ITI in Computer and up till 10+1 had studied in Jawahar Lal Navodaya Vidalaya. He has done 10+2 from his maternal grand parents house and his grand parents assisted him in doing computer training. His mother had ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:22063 met with an accident and then huge expenses were incurred on account thereof. His younger brother was undergoing training .
for which he is bearing the expenses. He stated that he had to take care of his wife. He further stated that earlier he was working as a Bar Clerk in the Court but due to studies he had to leave the job. He also stated that his father had three shops, vehicles and had kept a concubine. Further his father had sold land in the year 2024 for 80-90 lacs. His father had loaned an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to his nephew and in support of such allegation, annexed copy of the recovery suit Ext. RW1/A, copy of legal notice Ext. R1, photographs are marked as Mark R2 and Mark C.
15. In cross-examination, RW1 stated that he had done Diploma in the year, 2019. RW1 admitted that when he was minor, he used to get maintenance through his mother. Further volunteered to state that payment of maintenance was given late. He denied that the petitioner was unemployed. He admitted that his mother works in education department as Peon Multitasking. He stated that after his mother got job, the disability pension stopped. He further admitted that he is mentally and physically fit. He denied that has father had taken loan for paying maintenance, however, he admitted that there was an execution petition pending in the Court and volunteered ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:22063 to state that the same was an old execution petition pertaining to the period when his mother was not working. He denied that .
he was earning Rs. 15,000/- as Munshi. RW1 also denied that he is working as property dealer. He admitted that if his father transfer the land in his name, he would pay maintenance to him.
16. Having perused the evidence copy whereof was supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we really do not find how the petitioner could have filed the petition for grant of maintenance. No doubt,, maintenance to the old age parents is not only a moral but a legal duty of the children in view of the provisions of the law, like Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Himachal Maintenance of Parents and Dependants Act, 2001. However, the sine qua non of the condition precedent for filing an application claiming maintenance is that the person filing the application must not be able to maintain himself and thereafter maintenance can only be granted if there is a proof of neglect or refusal by the child to provide the support.
17. Here is the petitioner, who would initially claim that he was suffering from mental illness but would now claim that he is recovered but shamelessly claim maintenance and would state that he is mentally disturbed, but after selling the land would claim that there is sufficient improvement and there is no active symptom of the depressive disorder.
::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 11
2025:HHC:22063
18. Interestingly, the petition has been filed by the petitioner on his own behalf and further even the sale deed has .
been made by the petitioner himself without there being a guardian, as the petitioner being suffered from many of the disabilities as envisaged in law, including the one he claimed to be suffering, then obviously, in such circumstances neither could the petition nor could the sale deed have been effected in absence of a guardian.
19. Leaving aside everything, the petitioner has categorically acknowledged in his cross-examination that the shop in the name and style 'Raju Gamla Wala' belongs to him and he had availed of loan and repaid the same. He has a scooter and possesses 12 biswas of land out of which 5 biswas of land was sold for Rs. 5,00,000/- in the year, 2024. But while filing affidavit of assets and liability in support of his income in the year, 2024, would claim that he has no independent source of income. In such circumstances, not only the order refusing to grant of maintenance, but even ordering action for perjury cannot be said to be uncalled for, after all the stream of justice cannot be polluted at the instance of the petitioner.
20. Record reveals that the petitioner through out has played foul not only with the respondent but even his mother and his younger brother. Repeatedly driving the respondent to ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:22063 claim maintenance by filing execution petition, raising wall in front of the accommodation granted to the respondent's mother .
under the orders of the Court and filing frivolous petition claiming maintenance from the son would only indicate that the petitioner has no respect for the law but has shamelessly resorted to filing false affidavit and unethical means for achieving the goal. Giving a false evidence and filing a false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with strong hands. The object of resorting to false affidavit is clearly with an intent to impede and impair the normal flow of course of justice.
21. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner in our considered view is expedient in the interest of justice, not because there is some inaccuracy in the statement, which can be termed as innocent or immaterial, but because we find prima facie the case of deliberate false affidavit on the matter of substance for which there is reasonable foundation for framing the charge. The perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and, therefore, the conviction is reasonable probably. After all, when a person makes statement in the Court on oath, he is bound to state truth and if he does not, he makes himself liable under the provisions of the Section 229 of the BNS.
22. Coming to the other contention raised by Mr. Chandel, that the directions passed by the learned Court below ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:22063 to the effect that the petitioner who is hale and hearty mentally and physically fit, cannot be entitled to disability pension, which .
is again an offence punishable under BNS and the matter has to be dealt with law accordingly. We find no infirmity or illegality in the same. After all, even as per the petitioner he is now hale and hearty and if that be so, he cannot be held entitled to disability pension, that too, from the coffers of 'Public Fund'.
23. However as regards the directions passed by the learned Court below, directing the Sub Divisional Officer (C) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sarkaghat, to proceed as per law on the basis of the Court's observations, such directions are clearly without jurisdiction, as the Court is required to proceed with the procedure established by law as laid down in Chapter XIV of the BNSS. This part of the order cannot sustain as the Court was essentially required to proceed in the matter under Section 215 of the BNSS.
24. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, save and except, the findings in para 23 (supra) so also the pending applications, if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) th 8 July, 2025 Judge (sanjeev) ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2025 21:16:57 :::CIS