High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that statutory ingredients for maintenance must exist at time of order. Petitioner maintained by three brothers was not unable to maintain herself. Petitioner directed to claim from one son Rs 2000 per month.
Directed respondent Raghubir Singh to pay Rs 2000 per month to petitioner from 01.11.2023.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.255 of 2017 Date of Decision: November 4, 2023 Paramjit Kaur …Petitioner. Versus Raghubir Singh & others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 to 4 stand deleted vide order dated 08.01.2019.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed, assailing order dated 22.06.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Revision Petition No.9-N/10 of 2016, titled as Raghubir Singh vs. Paramjeet Kaur & others, whereby order dated 22.02.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Petition No.163/4 of 2013, titled as Paramjeet Kaur vs. Raghubir Singh & others allowing the petition of the petitioner by directing respondents No.1 and 4 to pay each monthly maintenance of `3000/- per month to their mother w.e.f. month of May 2013, has been set aside.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
under Section 125 The Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against her four sons, claiming 20,000/- per month as maintenance amount from the date of filing of petition by keeping in view inflation as well as necessities of life, with a prayer to award 5000/- as litigation expenses. Present respondent Raghubir Singh was respondent No.1 in the said petition and other three sons of petitioner were respondent No.2Gurmeet Singh, respondent No.3-Nirmal Singh and respondent No.4-Pritam Singh.
25,000/- per month; respondent No.2, owner of 9-10 bighas land in Village Barotiwala, was earning around 15,000/-, per month; respondent No.3, serving in Indian Army and having agricultural land measuring 8- 9 bighas in Village Barotiwala, was earning around 20,000/- per month; and respondent No.4, working in a Factory and having agricultural land measuring 9-10 bighas in Village Barotiwala, was earning about 20,000/- per month.3
treating her and were not maintaining her and in April 2013 she was forcibly thrown out of her house, which was constructed by her husband and petitioner was and is residing with Gurmeet Singh in Village Barotiwala, and with no source of income being widow she was living at mercy of Gurmeet Singh, who was also not providing her food, clothes and medicines etc.
5000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition, and petition qua them was disposed of accordingly. However, respondent No.4 did not appear before the Magistrate and an ex parte order directing him to pay 3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner, was passed at the time of passing of final order dated 22.02.2016 in Criminal Petition No.163/4 of 2013, titled as Paramjeet Kaur vs. Raghubir Singh & others whereby present respondent (respondent No.1)4
was also directed to pay the same amount, i.e. `3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner.
5
5000/- each, i.e. 10,000/- per6
month and Pritam Singh is paying 3000/- per month as stated in an application Cr.M.P. No.55 of 2019 by petitioner filed for deleting these respondents, which is duly supported by affidavit of petitioner that respondents No.2 to 4 are paying maintenance to the petitioner as per order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, petitioner is getting 13,000/- as maintenance from her three other sons.
7
she was ousted from the old house by Mahinder Singh about 2025 years ago, who was and is that Mahinder Singh, no information is available on record.
8
30004000/- per month, it is not possible for him to pay maintenance allowance to his mother. Stand of the respondent may be considered indirect refusal to pay maintenance. However there is no material on record with respect to existence of other ingredients. Rather two sons had accepted and undertaken to pay maintenance of 5000/- each in the very beginning and third son has also accepted to pay `3000/- per month whereas fourth son respondent Raghubir Singh is agitating the issue on the ground of paucity of funds.9
order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., all essential ingredients, required for awarding maintenance must necessarily be in existence at the time of passing order as discussed supra. In given facts and circumstances of the present case for want of requisite material, it cannot be said that with payment of maintenance by other three sons amounting to `13,000/- per month, petitioner is not able to maintain herself.
13,000/- per month as a sufficient amount of maintenance to the claimant-mother. it may be 13,000/- or `15,000/-.10
deposit on or before 07.11.2023. Details of account number shall be exchanged by parties through their learned counsel. 25. Needless to say that in the changed circumstances, either party has a right to file appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration/modification/enhancement/ reduction of the amount of maintenance.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
November 4, 2023 (Purohit)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is unable to maintain herself despite maintenance of Rs 13000 per month from three other sons.
Whether mere plea of moral duty is sufficient to enforce maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without statutory ingredients.
Whether the lower court correctly set aside the maintenance order against respondent.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Paramjit Kaur
Raghubir Singh
Vivek Singh Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court