Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Sunit Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC31 Jan 2012RSA/4722/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal challenging maintenance decrees, the High Court upheld the lower courts findings that the wife was entitled to separable maintenance due to husband cruelty and abandonment, dismissing the appeal as it raised no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the maintenance decree of Rs. 4000/-p.m. charged on agricultural land was affirmed.

Anil Kumar Vs Sunit Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:31.01.2012

Anil Kumar

......Appellant

Vs.

Sunita Devi

...Respondent

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶14

The husband-Anil Kumar is in second appeal before this Court.

¶15

Briefly stated Sunita Devi filed a petition for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by pleading that she was married to Anil Kumar on 20.03.1998 as per Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the parents had spent a lot of money and have also given gifts to the husband as also the other family members. Soon thereafter, the husband as also his family members started harassing her on the pretext having not brought sufficient dowry. It was pleaded that she was also subjected to mental cruelty inasmuch as it was repeatedly pointed out to her that she is only educated upto 7^th Class while the husband was highly qualified being a Post-Graduate and was a School Teacher. A daughter namely Kavita was born out of the wedlock on 13.09.1999 and even at that point of time, the husband and his family members took it as a bad omen.

¶16

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M)

¶17

-2-

¶18

On 12.08.2000, a son namely Ravi was born and even on that occasion inspite of her parents having spent a lot of money in terms of giving gifts etc. to the husband and his family members but still she was subjected to cruelty by stating that no gold ornament had been given as it was an occasion of the birth of a son. In March, 2001, the petitioner-wife was stated to be thrown out from her matrimonial house whereupon, a Panchayat was convened and with the intervention of the Panchayat members, she was permitted to stay in the matrimonial house. Soon thereafter, the husband again raised a demand of 2 lacs on the pretext that such amount was required for securing a Govt. job. The petitioner-wife pleaded that her uncle namely Amrit Lal withdrew an amount of 2 lacs from his account on 03.06.2003 and gave it to the husband. In spite of this, yet another demand of 2 lacs further was raised and upon the second demand having not been met she was given beatings by the husband, his mother, brother-Jaipal and Jaipal's wife namely Anita. On 03.11.2004, the petitioner was thrown out of the matrimonial home and the children were forcibly kept back against her wishes and against such factual background, it was stated that the petitionerwife having been thrown out of her matrimonial home, is now residing at her parental place and she has no source of income to maintain herself. It was further pleaded that the husband is a Teacher by profession and also owns agricultural land. It was stated that 39 kanals 9 marlas i.e. ¼ share out of the total land measuring 157 kanals 15 marlas came to the share of the husband by way of inheritance upon the demise of the father of the husband in the year 2005. It was also pleaded that the husband was earning more than 30,000/- P.M. On such facts it has been pleaded in the petition that a decree be passed in her favour in terms of fixing an amount towards

¶19

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

-3-

¶21

maintenance and such amount awarded be declared as a charge on the share of the husband in the agricultural land.

¶22

The husband i.e. present appellant contested the petition and set up a case that it was the petitioner-wife who was non-cooperative and had no respect for her husband as also her in-laws. The allegations regarding demand of dowry were denied. It is also stated that no articles were given at the time of marriage. Even the assertion of wife that she had been given beatings was also denied. It was stated that both the children were studying at Pehowa and it was further pleaded that he infact was un-employed and was owning only a small peace of land.

¶23

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

¶24

Whether the petitioner is entitled for seek maintenance from the respondent? OPP

¶25

If Ist issue is proved what should be the quantum of maintenance? OPP

¶26

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPR

¶27

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit? OPR

¶28

Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPR

¶29

Relief.

¶30

The trial Court allowed the petition and directed the husband i.e. present appellant to pay maintenance @ ` 4000/- P.M. from the date of the judgment and the amount so awarded was charged on the agricultural land. While deciding issues No.1 & 2 collectively, the trial Court had clearly held that the maintenance would be a charge on the share of the agricultural land

¶31

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M)

¶32

-4-

¶33

of the husband i.e. ¼ share out of the total land measuring 157 kanals 15 marlas entered in khewat No.9 as per mutation No.3635 of land situated in village Bakhli.

¶34

Against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2009 passed by the trial Court two civil appeals arose i.e. Civil Appeal No.68 of 2009 filed by the present appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.06.2009 and Civil No.63 of 2010 in the form of cross objections preferred by Sunita Devi-wife, praying that the amount so awarded is on the lower side and it be enhanced. Vide impugned judgment dated 25.05.2010, the Additional District Judge, Kaithal has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2009 passed by the trial court and consequently, both the civil appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No.68 of 2009 filed by the present appellant and Civil Appeal No.63 of 2010 (Cross objections) filed by the wife have been dismissed. Consequently, the husband-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶35

I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant at length. Primarily, two submissions have been raised by the learned counsel while questioning the impugned judgments of the Courts below. Learned counsel contends that no evidence had been led to prove that the respondent-wife has been forced to withdraw herself from the society of the appellant so as to live separately and claim maintenance. Secondly, it has been argued that even the quantum of ` 4000/- P.M. has been fixed without any cogent basis.

¶36

I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the wife is entitled to live separately from

¶37

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M)

¶38

-5-

¶39

her husband without forfeiting her right for maintenance and where the husband is guilty of having abandoned the wife without any reasonable cause. In the facts of the present case, both the Courts have concluded that the husband has willfully neglected the wife and has beaten her in a manner which would justifiably result in an apprehension that it would be harmful for her to live in the company of the husband. The wife has given a detailed version regarding the cruelty meted out to her. On the other hand, the appellant-husband has merely denied all the allegations. Mere nonexamination of witnesses to corroborate the version of the wife would not be a good reason to render the testimony of the wife to be false and unbelievable. Cruelty includes within its sphere not only physical cruelty but also mental as well. Both the Courts below on due appreciation of the pleadings of the parties have concluded that circumstances had been built up whereby the wife had been subjected to constant humiliation and had been totally neglected. The wife has submitted a duly sworn affidavit supporting the claim made by her in the petition. There is no basis to interfere with the conclusions and inferences drawn by the Courts below as regards the wife being compelled to live separately and to claim maintenance from the husband-appellant.

¶40

On the question of quantum of maintenance, the appellant in his cross-examination himself admitted that he had given the land on lease after the death of his father @ 8000/- per acre. In terms of exhibit P-11, the appellant/husband was found to be serving as a guest teacher on a monthly salary of 13,500/-. The appellant husband has thus been found to be earning atleast ` 20,000/- P.M. collectively. The Courts have taken into account that the appellant has not only to support himself but even his

¶41

RSA No.4722 of 2010 (O&M) -6-

¶42

mother as also two children born out of the wedlock. Accordingly, an amount of ` 4000/-P.M. has been fixed by the Courts below which under no circumstances can be construed as an unreasonable amount towards maintenance, keeping in view his income from employment as also from agricultural land.

¶43

I do not find any perversity in the findings of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below suffers from a misreading and misappreciation of evidence.

¶44

The present second appeal must fail as it does not arise any question of law much less substantial question of law.

¶45

Appeal dismissed.

¶46

January 31, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE

Anil Kumar v. Sunit Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Sunit 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

Randhir Singh and Anr. Vs Piaro Devi and Ors.

Shubeg Singh Vs Surjit Singh

U.H.B.V.N.L. and Anr. Vs Associated Petrochem Pvt. Limited

Pardeep Singh & Ors. Vs Sukhbir Singh & Anr.

Ghisaram and Ors. Vs Jaiparkash and Ors.

Gamdoor Singh Vs Pritpal Singh and Ors.