________________________________________ Chet Ram	_______________ …….Petitioner
Versus Sunita	… Respondent
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹.	_______________

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondent : Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

Instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to order dated 13.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Revision No.2FTC/10 of 2011, affirming the order dated 15.11.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby trial Court, while allowing an application, having been filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., proceeded to award maintenance to tune of Rs.1500/- per month.

¶10

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent instituted complaint under Section 125

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

2024:HHC:7785

¶14

Cr.P.C. in the competent Court of law, claiming therein that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner with whom, her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 21.10.2004 at Sh. Rishi Markandey Temple. She alleged that no child was born out of their wedlock. She alleged that initially for some time petitioner treated her nicely, but after some time threw her out from matrimonial house, as a result thereof, she was compelled to live at her parental house. She alleged that since she has no source of income, petitioner, who is a Government employee, may be directed to provide her maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/-, enabling her to sustain herself.

¶15

Aforesaid plea set up by the respondent came to be refuted by the petitioner, who by way of filing reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, denied factum of marriage interse him and the respondent. He categorically denied that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 21.10.2004.

¶16

Learned trial Court having taken note of aforesaid pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held respondent entitled to maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month.

¶17

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of maintenance passed by learned trial Court, petitioner preferred revision petition in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶18

¶19

2024:HHC:7785

¶20

Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2012. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid orders passed by learned Courts below.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 13.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby order dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arki, thereby granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month in favour of the respondent, came to be upheld, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for.

¶22

This Court finds that with a view to prove factum of her marriage with the petitioner, respondent adduced on record cogent and convincing evidence. She successfully proved on record that pursuant to her having solemnized marriage with the petitioner, her name was registered in the Panchayat register, wherein admittedly she came to be shown as wife of the petitioner. Since petitioner never signed at the time of recording her name in the Pariwar register, he specifically alleged that respondent fraudulently in connivance with

¶23

¶24

2024:HHC:7785

¶25

the Gram Panchayat, Samhola, succeeded in getting her marriage recorded in the Pariwar register, but such fact, if any, never came to be proved in accordance with law. Similarly, this Court finds that factum with regard to respondent having spent some time after their alleged marriage at the house of the petitioner, never came to be refuted.

¶26

Though, petitioner attempted to carve out a case that at no point of time respondent lived with him, but if the evidence adduced on record by the respondent, is perused and read in its entirety, it clearly establishes on record that she after having solemnized marriage with the petitioner stayed at the house of the petitioner, if it is so, that is sufficient to grant maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Needless to say, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, no specific evidence is required to be led on record by the applicant to prove his/her marriage, rather maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., can be claimed on the ground that applicant prior to her being ousted from matrimonial house was staying with person against whom, case of maintenance has been filed. In the instant case, there is ample evidence adduced on record by the respondent that she had been living with the petitioner at her matrimonial house, but since

¶28

¶29

2024:HHC:7785

¶30

petitioner wanted to solemnize another marriage, she was ousted from her matrimonial house.

¶31

Similarly, this Court finds that respondent successfully proved on record that petitioner is a Government employee and is in receipt of salary to the tune of Rs. 13000/- per month. If it so, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while ordering maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month. Once petitioner has not been able to dispute factum of his marriage with the respondent, coupled with the fact that respondent successfully proved on record factum of her having spent time at the house of the petitioner after alleged marriage, petitioner otherwise is under obligation to pay maintenance to his wife i.e. respondent herein.

¶32

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld. The present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

Needless to say, arrears of maintenance, if not already deposited, shall be positively deposited by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, failing which, he would render himself liable for penal consequence as well as contempt of the Court.

¶34

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶35

September 02, 2024 (shankar)

Chet Ram v. Sunita

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chet Ram v. Sunita

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandini Sharma Vij and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Kiran Sharma Vs Brinda Jewellers and Another

Rajinder Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Sonika Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Surjitender Vs State of Hp and Another

Sumit Kumar Sharma Vs Rajni Sharma and Others