Dismissed

Poonam Chauhan v. Surinder Zinta

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2017CRMMO/259/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sealed the petition quashing a Sessions Judge's maintenance order. It held that while the wife's claim terminated upon divorce and alimony payment, the daughter remains entitled to Rs. 2,000 maintenance per the lower courts' order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to pay maintenance, if not already paid, for petitioner No. 2 (daughter) as per Sessions Judge's order.

Poonam Chauhan Vs Surinder Zinta — Matrimonial and Divorce | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr.MMO No. 259 of 2014 Decided on 4.7.2017

¶3

_______________________________________________ Poonam Chauhan and Anr. Versus	___________________ …..Petitioners
Surinder Zinta	…..Respondent
_______________________________________________ Coram:	___________________
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge

¶4

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the petitioners.	: Mr.	Saurav Rattan, Advocate.
For the respondent. _____________________	: Mr. ____________	Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. _________________________________

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶7

By way of instant criminal miscellaneous petition filed under

¶8

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing/setting aside order dated 11.6.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Revision No. 10-S/10 of 2013 , whereby order dated 24.5.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., in criminal petition No. 75-4 of 2011, has been modified.

¶9

Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioners preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC for grant of maintenance against the respondent in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Court No.1, Shimla, who vide order dated

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

…2…

¶12

24.5.2013, allowed the application for maintenance and directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to petitioner No.1wife and Rs. 2,000/- to petitioner No.2-daughter from the date of the order. However, aforesaid order having been passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Court No.1, Shimla, came to be modified in criminal revision No. 10-S/10 of 2013, having been filed by the respondent. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.6.2014, held the petitioner entitled for maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000 to the wife and daughter, respectively. In the aforesaid, background, present petitioners approached this Court by way of instant proceedings seeking therein quashment of order dated 11.6.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶13

Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Saurav Rattan, learned counsel representing the petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to order dated 15.1.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla in HMA Petition No. 29-S/3 of 2015, which has been placed on record by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 555 of 2015, stated that marriage of petitioner No.1 and the respondent has been ordered to be dissolved by way of mutual decree of divorce w.e.f. 15.1.2016. It also emerge from the aforesaid decree of dissolution passed by the learned District Judge,

¶14

that the petitioner No.1 has agreed to receive sum of Rs. 15 lacs, as permanent alimony from the respondent. Mr. Rattan, fairly stated that right to maintenance as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Court No.1, Shimla, further upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, stands

¶15

…3…

¶16

waived/terminated in light of mutual decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, wherein admittedly, the petitioner No.1 has received an amount of Rs. 15 lacs as permanent alimony. However, learned counsel stated that petitioner No.2-daughter, is still entitled to maintenance amounting to Rs. 2, 000/- as awarded by the courts below.

¶17

At this stage, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent stated that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of arrear of maintenance as awarded in favour of petitioner No.1 in petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, also stands paid to the petitioner-wife and as such, she has no claim, if any, against the respondent as of today.

¶18

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court taking note of decree of divorce by mutual consent granted by the learned Additional District Judge (II) as well as submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent to pay an amount of maintenance, if not already paid, as far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, in terms of order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. All pending applications, if any also stand

¶19

disposed of.

¶20

4^th July, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge

Poonam Chauhan v. Surinder Zinta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Chauhan v. Surinder Zinta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State

Shiv Mandir and Shiv Bari Vs State

Bhawana Sharma Vs Shrikant Baldi

Vivek Sharma Vs Ms Durga Fruit Company and Another

Devinder Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar

Amlu Devi Vs Shyam Dass