Dismissed

Mamta v. Tarun Khanna

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2024CRR(F)/212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged dismissal of her Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition. The High Court found she concealed her employment at a beauty salon, had regular income and was already receiving Rs.4,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act; husband earned only about Rs.11,000 monthly and maintained their child. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed, pending applications disposed of.

Mamta Vs Tarun Khanna — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

109 CRR-F-212-2024(O&M)

¶4

Date of order: 06.08.2024

Mamta

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Tarun Khanna

…..Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr.Nihul Pratap Singh, A d vocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶14

Challenge in the prese n t petition is to order dated

¶15

04.12.2023 p assed by learned Principal J u dge, Family Court, Gurugram , whereby th e petition filed by the petitioner / wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. , for grant of f inal maintenance allowance, has been dismissed.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the p etitioner inter alia submits tha t

¶17

the respond e nt is earning more than Rs.5 0 ,000/- per month; whereas a s per the ban k account statement of the petitioner, as on 19.10.2023, she i s having only R s.27,958/- in her bank accoun t . Moreover, the learned Famil y Court has w rongly assessed income of the respondent to be onl y Rs.11,000/- p er month. It is further submitt e d that the learned Family Cour t has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is not in a regular job and wa s not drawing any fixed regular income fro m that job. It is submitted tha t being the le g ally wedded wife of the respo n dent, the petitioner is entitle d

¶18

to mainten a nce from the respondent. P r esently, the petitioner is no t

¶19

SUNENA 2024.08.08 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

having source of income and is a burden up o n her parents, who are old ag e persons and unable to maintain the petitio n er. The respondent has ruined the matrim o nial life of the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that th e impugned o r der be set aside.

¶22

3. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.

¶23

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d

¶24

perused the case file in great detail.

¶25

5. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r

¶26

was married to the respondent on 13.04. 2 016. One son was born out o f their wedlo c k on 04.07.2017, who is admit t edly in the care and custody o f the respond e nt/husband. Due to matrimo n ial discord, the parties starte d living separately from 20.04.2018. The pre s ent petition under Section 12 5 Cr.P.C. was f i led by the petitioner on 02.05. 2 019.

¶27

6. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that th e respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- per m o nth as he is working as R O mechanic, in Electric Kata Operator,and res p ondent is also a fruit seller. It i s also the pleaded case of the petitioner befo r e the learned Family Court tha t the respond e nt has rental income of more t han Rs.10,000/- per month and that he has no other liabilities except to m aintain the petitioner and th e minor child; w hereas the petitioner is residi n g at the mercy of her parents.

¶28

7. Per contra, it was the pleaded case of the responden t before the learned Family Court that t h e petitioner is working as a beautician a t Arti Fashion, Gurugram; in r e spect of which the responden t

¶29

SUNENA 2024.08.08 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

had produc e d a video (Exhibit R2). It was a lso pleaded by the responden t that the p e titioner is earning Rs.15,000 / - per month from the sai d avocation in addition to which she also ge t s tips from the customers an d percentage o f profit, making her monthly i n come to be around Rs.22,000/ - to Rs.25,000 / -. The respondent had denied t hat he was earning Rs.50,000/ - per month.

¶32

8. It is an established trend in matters of maintenance suc h as the pres e nt one, that each party gives an exaggerated account of th e income of t he opposite party. In the pr e sent case, the petitioner ha d produced h e r bank account statement for o nly six months and not for th e last three years as directed by the Hon’ b le Supreme Court in case o f

¶33

“Rajnesh Vs. Neha” Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020, Law Finder Doc ID # 1760057; and even from the said bank stat e ments, it was evident that th e petitioner h a d regular income. Moreover, t h ere were 4-5 video clips in th e pen drive (E x .R2) from which it was evident that the petitioner was workin g in a beauty salon. Most importantly, the f a ctum of her employment had been conce a led by the petitioner from th e learned Family Court. On th e other hand, t he respondent had produced h is bank account statements fo r the past tw o years which showed that duri n g the two years, an amount o f Rs.2,62,000/- was credited in his account a nd an amount of Rs.2,54,000/ - was withdrawn. If the amount of Rs.2,62, 0 00/- is divided by 2 years/24 , then it com e s to about Rs.11,000/- per m onth. The petitioner failed t o adduce any evidence whatsoever in supp o rt of her contention that th e

¶34

SUNENA 2024.08.08 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

respondent is earning about Rs.50,000/- p e r month. Thus, income of th e respondent w as determined to be only abo u t Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶37

9. Upon consideration of t h e entire oral and documentar y evidence pr o duced by the parties, the learned Family Court had furthe r found that i t was the petitioner who had d eserted the matrimonial hom e leaving behi n d the six-month old child with t he respondent. I t is not denie d by the petiti o ner, that the respondent is maintaining the minor child single - handedly. It is also not denied that the petitioner is getting Rs.4,000/- pe r month as m aintenance allowance in a p e tition filed by her under th e Protection o f Women from Domestic Violen c e Act.

¶38

It is my considered view that it is the first and foremos t duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. Especially keeping in mind th e fact that she is able-bodied. The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protec t abandoned w ives who are unable to main t ain themselves from vagranc y and destitu t ion. A three-Judge Bench of t he Hon’ble Supreme Court i n “ Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)” (1991) 2 SCC 375 , speaking throug h Justice Fati m a Beevi, held as follows:

¶39

“3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i s meant to achieve a so c ial purpose. The object is t o prevent vagrancy and d e stitution. It provides a speed y remedy for the supply o f food, clothing, and shelter t o the deserted wife...”

¶40

11. Again, in “ Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat”

¶41

(1996) 4 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t has opined as follows:

¶42

SUNENA 2024.08.08 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶43

Page 5 of 5

¶44

“15. ...While dealing wi t h the ambit and scope of th e provision contained in S e ction 125 of the Code, it has t o be borne in mind that the dominant and primary objec t is to give social justice t o the woman, child and infir m parents, etc. and to prev e nt destitution and vagrancy b y compelling those who ca n support those who are unabl e to support themselves but have a moral claim fo r support. The provisions i n Section 125 provide a speed y remedy to those women , children and destitute parent s who are in distress. Th e provisions in Section 125 ar e intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominan t purpose behind the ben e volent provisions contained i n Section 125 clearly is t h at the wife, child and parent s should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvatio n …”

¶45

The clear purpose of t h e provision is to grant socia l justice to a destitute woman, child, or inf i rm parents. A bare reading o f Section 125 C r.P.C. itself indicates that mai n tenance is admissible to a wif e who is ‘ una b le to maintain herself’ . In the present case that is not so. A s such no ground is made out that calls fo r interference in the impugne d order.

¶46

13. In view of the above, pre s ent petition is d ismissed.

¶47

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶48

06.08.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

¶49

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶50

SUNENA 2024.08.08 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

Mamta v. Tarun Khanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta v. Tarun Khanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Suraj Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Others

Gurdeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jatinder Kaur Vs Jaswant Singh and Anr.

Amarjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raj Bala Vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.