Dismissed

Ishwar Dharra v. Dhanno Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2009CRM-M/13815/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal misc petition challenging revision dismissal under S.125 CrPC. Court held no error in interim maintenance order noting petitioner's ability to pay Rs.1500/month. Fact disputes like disinheritance or income verification reserved for trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed with no interference in the interim maintenance order.

Ishwar Dharra Vs Dhanno Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13815 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13815 of 2009

¶4

Date of decision: 19.05.2009

Ishwar Dharra

….. Petitioner

Versus

Dhanno Devi

…. Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. S. Saron Present: Shri Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***

¶11

S.S. SARON, J.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar had been dismissed.

¶13

The parents of the petitioner, namely, Sita Ram son of Anant Ram and Smt. Dhano wife of Sita Ram filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for the grant of maintenance. During the pendency of the said petition, an application was filed for the grant of interim maintenance. The parents of the petitioner, namely, Sita Ram and Smt. Dhano had two sons, one of them was Kuldeep Singh who died on 06.07.2004. After the death of said Kuldeep Singh, it is stated by the parents of the petitioner that they had no income to maintain themselves. The children of said Kuldeep Singh (deceased) were also living with them. The petitioner was their son who was married and was working with “Hari Bhoomi” newspaper as a reporter and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from all his sources. Sita Ram father of Ishwar Dharra (petitioner) had a house at Mandi Uklana where the petitioner Ishwar Dharra

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13815 of 2009

¶15

¶16

was living. The petitioner had thrown out his parents from the said house and forcibly taken possession of the same in January, 2001. A Panchayat of the 'Biradri' (brother-hood) was convened for settlement of the dispute but the petitioner Ishwar Dharra threatened that he would not allow the entry of his parents in the said house. The house was still in the name of Sita Ram and he never gave it to the petitioner. Sita Ram reserved his right to file a separate suit in this regard. It was alleged by the parents of the petitioner that they were in their old age and unable to earn. There was an acute problem before them for their survival and they needed financial help to maintain themselves. Sita Ram was also handicapped due to paralysis and had to spend Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month on his medicines. The petitioner was legally and socially bound to maintain his parents. Therefore, they claimed maintenance to the extent of Rs.8000/- per month for their basic needs; besides, Rs.5000/- for ligation expenses.

¶17

The petitioner filed his reply to the petition and stated that Kuldeep Singh, his brother was murdered on 06.07.2004 by Jagdish Chander who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner, that is, the brother of Sita Ram-his father. It was denied by the petitioner Ishwar Dharra that his parents had no source of income to keep and maintain themselves. His parents had sufficient sources of income. The petitioner in fact, had paid Rs.1,40,000/- to his parents in lieu of the residential house where he was residing. Besides, his parents also had ancestral property at village Bithmara. His father had 1/3^rd share equal to two acres of land and a big house in village Bithmara. His father also owned a plot situated near the old bus stand Uklana and its price was more than Rs.10 lacs. Father of the petitioner also sold plots at Kaithal and Hisar, which was joint property of the family. It is submitted that Rs.10 lacs came to the father of the petitioner from the sale of said plots and the same was with the parents of the petitioner. Whenever the petitioner demanded his share, his

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13815 of 2009

¶19

¶20

father under the influence of his uncle did not pay the amount. It is denied by the petitioner that he was working with “Hari Bhoomi” newspaper as a reporter and was earning Rs.15000/- per month. Rather he was on part time working with 'Amar Ujala' newspaper for Rs.1280/- per month. The convening of Panchayats of the Biradri (brother-hood) is denied by the petitioner. It is denied that he declared that he would not allow the entry of his parents in the house. It is stated that the parents had made a false story under the influence of Jagdish Chander, the paternal uncle of the petitioner. Besides, he had never refused his parents to enter his house. The door of his house was open for his parents. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was the owner in possession of the house because he had already made payment for the same. It is denied by the petitioner that his father was a handicap person and had to spend Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month on medicines. The parents of the petitioner have huge property, cash and bank balance. The petitioner was still ready and willing to keep and maintain his parents. It was denied that his parents need Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance or Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

¶21

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Hisar after considering the allegations inter alia observed that the petitioner was earning not less than Rs.10,000/- per month and hence, he was directed to pay Rs.1500/- to each of his parents towards interim maintenance from the date of filing the application; besides, Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

¶22

Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court at Hisar which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the hearing of the case has submitted that the father of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Sita Ram has since died and

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13815 of 2009 4

¶25

his mother Dhano Devi-respondent only survives. It is submitted that the petitioner has no means to maintain his mother and he is earning only Rs.1280/- per month as a part time reporter with 'Amar Ujala' newspaper. Besides, it is submitted that the petition has been filed at the instance of his parental uncle Jagdish Chander who is inimical towards the petitioner. The petition in fact has been filed only to pressurize the petitioner as he had filed a complaint against his parental uncle Jagdish Chander for the offences under Sections 420/463/468/302/301/406 and 120-B IPC which was pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is only a tactic on the part of his mother to pressurize him.

¶26

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner had been ordered to pay Rs.1500/- per month to each of his parents in pursuance of the impugned orders. At present his father Sh. Sita Ram has died and an amount of Rs.1500/- is to be paid to his mother and that also as an interim measure. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar, inter alia observed that the monthly income of the petitioner from all sources was not less than Rs.10,000/-. There is nothing on record at this stage to dislodge the said finding of the learned Court below. Even otherwise this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to go into the veracity of facts so as to dislodge the conclusions reached at by the learned Court below with regard to the determination of the amount that the petitioner is liable to pay to his mother. The petitioner can well easily pay Rs.1500/- per month to his mother as interim maintenance. The contentions as raised herein would more appropriately be gone into and considered by the learned trial Court at the time of final hearing of the case and after evidence has been led by the parties.

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M- 13815 of 2009 5

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, referred to the cross examination of his mother Smt. Dhano Devi who appeared as AW1. In her crossexamination, it is inter alia submitted by her that they had disinherited the petitioner from the movable and immovable properties; besides, she draws old age pension of Rs.300/- per month. She resides in the house of Bishnoi and her three grand-children were residing with her. These aspects would also be more appropriately considered after the evidence has been led and the final order is to be passed. At this stage, interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month has been granted to the mother of the petitioner and there is no error shown in the impugned orders, which would warrant the setting aside of the said orders.

¶29

Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶31

19.05.2009 mandeepkr/A.Kaundal

Ishwar Dharra v. Dhanno Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Dharra v. Dhanno Devi

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

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Sucha Singh Vs Union of India

Civil Panchayat Deh. Gram Panc Vs Union Territory,Chandigarh

S. Bala Subramanian Vs State of Punjab

M/S Jagat Roller Flour Mills Vs Pb. St. Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd.

Pritu Vs Stat Eo of Haryana and Ors.