High Court dismissed a petition under Cr.P.C. 482 challenging an interim maintenance order granted to a wife under the DV Act, holding the order sustainable as the adult male failed to prove denial of relationship.
Petition dismissed; deposited maintenance amount released to respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 381 of 2016 Reserved on: 22.07. 2021 Date of Decision: 30.07.2021
_______________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Rekha Gupta ...Respondent ______________________________________________________________ Coram:_
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
Case |
Number 62/4 of 2015, D | ecided on |
|---|---|---|
| Number Before |
05.08.2015 by the Chief |
Judicial |
| Judicial Magistrate |
Magistrate, District Solan, H.P. | |
| Sessions Court |
Cr. Appeal No. 22SJ-II/10 | of 2015, |
| Appeals’ Number | decided on 08.11.2016 by the Sessions Judge-II, Solan,H.P. |
Additional |
Anoop Chitkara, Judge
Challenging the dismissal of appeal filed by the original
respondent for grant of monthly maintenance by the Chief
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2
Judicial Magistrate, Solan, to a woman in domestic relationship, the adult male has come up before this Court.
2. The present respondent, Rekha Gupta, had filed a complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’). Consequent thereto, the Protection Officer informed the police officials and the Magistrate for its registration.
3. Thereafter, the original respondent, adult male filed its response and denied any relationship with the woman, except to the extent that her services were hired to take care of his daughter.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated her allegations that she had performed marriage with the respondent in a temple and she was living as wife.
5. After that the complainant filed an application under Sections 20 and 23 of the DV Act, seeking interim maintenance.
6. Vide the above mentioned order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, after discussing the contents of the complaint, reply and rejoinder, arrived at a conclusion that the lady is entitled to monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- from the original respondent, adult male.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the original respondent, adult male, challenged the order of interim maintenance by filing an
3
appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Solan. Vide judgment mentioned above, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, dismissed the appeal.
8. Challenging dismissal of the appeal, adult male has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with utmost care.
10. After the order of interim maintenance, statements of the witnesses have been recorded and I have gone through the same, but any reference or observations qua these statements, which were recorded subsequent to the order of interim maintenance, might prejudice the case of the either of the parties. I have also gone through the past conduct of the adult male and any observation qua that might also prejudice his case.
11. Since, the brief question before this Court is, whether order or interim maintenance is legally sustainable or not. This Court after minute scrutiny of the entire record, including the original application, reply of the respondent and rejoinder, is also of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order granting interim maintenance and the same calls for no interference by this Court.
4
12. It is again stated that any observations in detail might prejudice the case of the parties, as such, this Court refrains from observing so.
13. Given above, the petition is dismissed. The registry is directed to return the record forthwith.
14. Order dated 10.01.2019, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, reveals that some amount was deposited by the petitioner during pendency of this petition. 15. Given above, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount, which is lying deposited with it, alongwith up to date interest accrued thereupon, if any, and less taxes, if any. Such amount shall be released to the respondent, Rekha Gupta, in her Saving Bank Account, details of which shall be furnished by her to the Registry. It is clarified that respondent, Rekha Gupta, must be the sole account holder of Saving Bank Account. Registry shall transfer the money either through ECS in the said account or by way of non-negotiable instrument.
( R.Atal )
Anoop Chitkara, Judge
30 July, 2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance order granted to the complainant under the DV Act calls for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Kumar Gupta
Rekha Gupta
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
