Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh vs Manoj Kumari And Another on 29 November, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-40519 of 2013
Date of decision: November 29, 2013
Rajesh
...Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Kumari and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner Rajesh has filed this petition against Manoj Kumari and Amit Kumar under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment dated 06.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham and the judgment dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
The main issue as stated in the petition is that respondent No.2 filed petition dated 09.08.2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming the maintenance and submitted that the petitioner is running the business of property dealing and is earning ` 25,000/- per month. The petitioner submitted reply in that case. The learned SDJM, Meham vide order dated 18.12.2008, directed the petitioner to pay ` 1500/- per month each to respondent No.1, which he is already paying under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in addition a sum of ` 500/- per month to respondent No.2 by way of interim maintenance. It is also stated in the petition that petitioner is not doing any business and is unemployed and having no source of income. Learned SDJM, Gulati Vineet 2013.12.11 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-40519 of 2013 -2- Meham without holding the income of the petitioner, granted maintenance @ ` 4000/- per month to respondent No.1 and ` 3000/- per month to respondent No.2 with effect from the date of petition, vide order dated 06.12.2011. The revision petition filed by the present petitioner against the above-said order was also dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2011. It is mainly stated in the petition that no evidence was produced regarding the business of property dealing of the petitioner.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner again argued that there being no evidence on the record regarding income of the petitioner, the maintenance amount cannot be granted to the respondents and the orders are illegal.
I have gone through the judgment dated 06.12.2011 passed by SDJM, Meham. The perusal of the judgment shows that the court held that respondent (the present petitioner) was having sufficient agricultural land, which he has already alienated vide mutation Nos.Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. He has also alienated deliberately the residential house. The petitioner (present respondent) stated in the evidence that respondent (present petitioner) is earning ` 50,000/- from the property dealing business. The petitioner (present respondent)also proved the photograph of the car Ex.AX to show that respondent (present petitioner) is owning the car. It is discussed in the judgment that when present petitioner appeared as RW-1, he had himself admitted photograph of the car but stated that he has hired the same from his friend and his friend namely Surender Kumar is Gulati Vineet 2013.12.11 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-40519 of 2013 -3- owner of that car. AW-2 Surender Kumar also appeared in support of the present respondents and denied that he is owner of that car. After discussing the evidence produced on the record, the trial Court granted maintenance @ ` 4000/- per month to petitioner No.1 (respondent No.1 in present petition) and ` 3000/- per month to petitioner No.2 (respondent No.2 in present petition) by holding that the respondent (present petitioner) is living luxurious life. Nowhere the present petitioner has given his income in those proceedings.
I have also gone through the judgment dated 08.11.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality in the above-said order nor he has pointed out that which evidence has been misread by the learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to show which material evidence has not been discussed by the courts below.
From the perusal of the record, I find that the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham and the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak in the revision petition, are correct, as per law and the same are upheld.
Therefore, in view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
November 29, 2013 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Gulati Vineet
2013.12.11 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh