In a Special Leave to Appeal context clarifying Section 125, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking to quash the Family Court's order granting maintenance to a deserted wife.
The petition seeking quashing of the maintenance order was dismissed.
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.
CRM.Misc. No. 18640 of 2010 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. 18640 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 05, 2010
Suraj Soni
...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Rajesh Khandelwal,Advocate for the petitioner.
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of impugned judgment dated 15.5.2010 passed by the District Judge Family Court Hisar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in petition No. 35-3 dated 13.11.2007.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 to 4, read as under:-
“2. The facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:-
That the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent Surat Soni according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 11.4.2007 at Hisar. The marriage was consummated but no issue was born out of this wedlock.
3.It is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner spent about Rs.2,50,000/- in the marriage of the petitioner and every
CRM.Misc. No. 18640 of 2010 (O&M)
2
demands of the respondent and his family members was fulfilled at the time of marriage Despite that the petitioner was not treated as a family member and the respondent and his family members started taunting, harassing and beating the petitioner for not bringing more dowry articles. The respondent and his family members told the petitioner that they are not satisfied with the dowry articles and they expect more dowry from the petitioner. This fact was told by the petitioner to her parents and thereafter the father of the petitioner visited the house of respondent and tried to make them understand but of no effect. The petitioner was threatened that she would not be allowed to join the society of the respondent, if she did not bring the dowry as demanded by the respondent and his family members.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in granting Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2. In fact, petitioner had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') and was ready and
3
CRM.Misc. No. 18640 of 2010 (O&M)
willing to maintain respondent No.2 in the matrimonial home.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
Admittedly, petitioner was married with respondent No.2 on 11.4.2007. The case of respondent No.2 was that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing the job of an Accountant but had failed to maintain her. Respondent No.2 further pleaded that she was unable to maintain herself and was residing with her parents. The case of respondent No.2 further was that she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home on 10.7.2007 after giving beatings to her. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted wives with a view to save them from starvation and vagrancy. This provision has a social object to achieve.
The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, has allowed Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2. The said amount cannot be said to be on the higher side in these days of high prices. Merely because the petitioner had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act, is no ground to dismiss the application moved by respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Dismissed.
( SABINA ) JUDGE
arya
July 05, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order granting maintenance to a wife should be dismissed.
Whether filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a valid ground to deny maintenance-seeking under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Suraj Soni
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
