Allowed

Krishna Devi v. Vipan Lal

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jul 2021CRMMO/250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner-wife challenged the Additional Sessions Court's order reducing her maintenance from Rs.3000 to Rs.1500. Relying on a compromise deed where husband agreed to Rs.2500, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the revision, and directed payment of Rs.2500 till June 2021, restoring Rs.3000 from July. Case relates to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order reducing maintenance to Rs.1500 is set aside; the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2500 per month from the date of filing the petition until June 30, 2021, and Rs.3000 per month thereaf

Krishna Devi Vs Vipan Lal — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.250 of 2016

¶4

Reserved on : July 6, 2021 Date of Decision: July 7, 2021

Krishna Devi

...Petitioner.

Versus

Vipan Lal

...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹ NO

¶13

For the petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate.

¶14

For the respondent: Mr. Rajiv Sood, Advocate.

¶15

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

¶16

Anoop Chitkara, Judge

¶17

Challenging the reduction of monthly maintenance from Rs.3000/-, which was awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, to Rs.1500/- by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, H.P., the petitioner-wife has come up before this Court.

¶18

In September, 2013, the present petitioner, Smt. Krishna Devi filed a petition under Section 125 (1) Cr.PC before Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chopal, District Shimla for grant of monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs.5,000/- from her husband, Shri Vipan Lal, respondent herein. The said petition was registered as Petition No.76-4/2013.

¶19

The petitioner pleaded that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and two daughters are born from the wedlock. The husband was not only cruel to

¶20

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶21

¶22

her, but he would also harass and malign her. She had filed complaints against him for cruelty at Police Station, Chopal.

¶23

Vide a written compromise dated 6.10.2012 (Ex.PW2/A) , the husband and wife settled their disputes whereby the husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the wife and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- per annum to meet the other basic expenses. The husband being father of the daughters opted to keep the daughters with him and the other was allowed to visit them.

¶24

The petitioner alleged that despite compromise, the respondent-husband did not pay any money to her. The petitioner-wife also alleged that she has been neglected by her husband and she is not being paid any maintenance allowance from November, 2012. To save herself from starvation, she has taken shelter in her parents’ home.

¶25

The respondent-husband filed reply and stated that the wife was in the habit of leaving his company and would not even attend the children. He further stated that she would leave him and join his company on her whims and fancies. He denied the allegation of cruelty. In Paragraph-3 of the reply, he stated that he had never arrived at any compromise (Ex.PW2/A).

¶26

In Paragraph-4 of the reply, the respondent-husband specifically stated that the daughters are living with him and he is handicapped person and is living below the poverty line. In Paragraph-6 of the reply, he took a stand that he neither neglected the wife nor deserted her nor he refused to maintain her.

¶27

In rejoinder, the wife re-iterated the allegations. She appeared as PW-1 and re-iterated the contentions made by her in the petition. She stated on oath that on 6.10.2012, they have arrived at a written compromise and at that time, Shri Laiq Ram, Pradhan was also present. In cross-examination, she admitted that her husband had not put any signature on the compromise deed in her presence.

¶28

Shri Laiq Ram, Pradhan, appeared as PW-2 and stated that the parties had entered into a compromise and he kept the original compromise with him because both the parties were interested to keep the same with them. He placed the compromise on record as Ex.PW2/A.

¶29

Shri Yogesh Azta appeared as PW-3 who testified that he was signatory to the compromise. However, he stated that Vipan Lal, the husband did not put his signatures on the compromise.

¶30

¶31

Respondent, Vipan Lal also stepped into the witness box as RW-3. He reiterated the stand taken by him in the reply and also stated that he is a handicapped person because his right hand does not work. He states that he works in MNREGA and belongs to BPL family. He admitted his signature on compromise deed (Ex.PW2/A), but clarified that he did not know what was written in it.

¶32

A perusal of the compromise (Ex.PW2/A), which is on a stamp paper, reveals that it was purchased in the name of Vipan Lal from the Stamp Vendor and it has been scribed in Devnagri (Hindi language). Vipan Lal has also put his signatures in Devnagri (Hindi language).

¶33

Learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, after analyzing the entire evidence, allowed the maintenance petition No.76-4/2013 vide its order dated 7.7.2015 and granted the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner-wife from the date of filing of the petition.

¶34

The wife did not challenge the order of maintenance, however, the husband was aggrieved and challenged the same by filing Cr. Rev. Petition No.17-S/10 of 2015 before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, H.P., who vide judgment dated 1.4.2016 partly allowed the petition and reduced the maintenance allowance from Rs.3000/- to Rs.1500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition.

¶35

Challenging the said reduction order, the petitioner-wife has come up before this Court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC.

¶36

I have heard Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner-wife and Mr. Rajiv Sood, learned counsel for the respondent-husband and have gone through the record.

¶37

As far as the compromise deed (Ex.PW2/A) is concerned, even if the husband had not put his signature in presence of other witnesses and his wife, still in his cross-examination, he admitted his signature on the same. His explanation that he has not read the same is inconsequential primarily because the compromise was scribed in Devnagri (Hindi language) and he has also put his signature in Devnagri (Hindi language). Furthermore, as per the compromise, the daughters were to live with the respondent-husband and in fact from that date onwards it remains undisputed that the daughters are living with the father. It means that the compromise was acted upon by the husband.

¶38

¶39

Now to save the maintenance amount which he had agreed to pay, he took first plea that he did not sign this, in cross-examination although he admitted the signatures, but stated that he has not read the same. This is blowing hot and cold.

¶40

Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, further drew attention of this Court to order dated 13.12.2019 wherein he had stated on instructions that the wife was still willing to stay with her husband. On that day, Mr. Rajiv Sood, learned counsel for the husband had to ascertain the response of the respondent. Despite passing of one and half years, the husband did not come up with any positive response.

¶41

Mr. Rajiv Sood, learned counsel for the respondent-husband stated that the husband is not only handicapped but is working under MNREGA. His daughters are studying at Dehradoon and Shimla and he can hardly support them.

¶42

Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel did not dispute this fact that the daughters are studying at Dehradoon and in Portmore School at Shimla. Given this, the husband undoubtedly would be spending some money in upbringing the daughters, but when he had entered into a compromise with his wife, he had volunteered to take care of the daughters.

¶43

I have gone through the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla and the reasons for reduction of maintenance are in ignorance of the compromise entered into between the parties whereby the husband had volunteered to pay Rs.2500/- per month and annually grant Rs.5,000/- to the wife.

¶44

Be that as it may, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and judgment dated 1.4.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla is set aside to the extent that the reduction of monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- to Rs.1500/- would be treated as reduction from Rs.3000/- to Rs.2500/- from the date of filing of the petition, till June 30, 2021.

¶45

Given above, the petitioner-wife is entitled to monthly allowance @ Rs.2500/- from the respondent-husband from the date of filing of the petition. However, the husband shall continue to pay the allowance @ Rs.3000/- per month from July, 2021.

¶46

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

¶47

Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶48

July 7, 2021 ( ks )

Krishna Devi v. Vipan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Devi v. Vipan Lal

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

State Vs Sita Ram

Atul Sen Vs State of Hp

Sunny Alias Litha Alias Nitha Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State

Manoj Kumar Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Jaswant Alias Jagdish Vs State of Hp