Dismissed

Smt. Taranjeet Kaur and Another v. State and Another

Uttarakhand HC9 Oct 2013CRLR/183/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision against an order denying a wife maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that her refusal to live separately from the husband's family without sufficient reason constituted living separately without sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; order of Family Court dismissing wife's application for maintenance upheld.

Smt. Taranjeet Kaur and Another Vs State and Another — Domestic Violence | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No.183 of 2008

¶3

Smt. Taranjeet Kaur and another … Revisionists vs. State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents

¶4

Mr. B. S. Adhikari, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. P. S. Saun, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶5

Hon’ble U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶6

The revisionists, by means of present criminal revision, seek to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case no.107 of 2006 titled as Smt. Taranjeet Kaur & another vs. Amar Pal Singh under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. It is further prayed that respondent no.2 (Amar Pal Singh/husband) may be directed to pay the maintenance allowance to his wife (revisionist no.1) as well.

¶7

The revisionists filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent no.2 (Amar Pal Singh) for grant of maintenance allowance. Respondent no.2 (husband of revisionist no.1) filed written statement wherein he admitted his marriage with revisionist no.1/Smt. Taranjeet Kaur. Oral and documentary evidence was given by the parties. After considering the evidence on record, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, vide order dated 29.08.2008, dismissed the application of applicant no.1 (revisionist no.1 herein). Respondent no.2 (husband) was, however, directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance allowance to his minor son, i.e., applicant no.2 (revisionist no.2 herein).

¶8

Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was moved by the revisionists.

¶9

-2-

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists assailed the findings of the court below on the grounds, inter alia , that the court below committed a mistake in holding that the allegations of dowrydemand against revisionist no.1’s husband and his family members were false, in as much as, a criminal case of harassment in connection with demand of dowry is pending against the husband (respondent no.2) and his parents in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that on an FIR lodged by the wife (revisionist no.1), the matter was investigated and after investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against respondent no.2 (husband) and his family members under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the allegations of demand of dowry were false. There is some sense in the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists and it is, therefore, held that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun ought not to have dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on this ground.

¶11

But, there is also the other side of the coin. It has come on evidence that the husband (respondent no.2 herein) is ready to keep and maintain his wife (revisionist no.1), but the wiferevisionist is not willing to live with her husband, so long as his parents and other family members live in the same house. Wiferevisionist no.1 said, in her cross examination that if her husband lives separately from his parents and takes a rented house for her and her child, then only she is willing to live with her husband. Revisionist no.1 (wife) was also specific in saying that she is unable to live with her husband, so long as he lives with his parents and other family members in the joint family.

¶12

The wife (revisionist no.1) has further compounded the problem for her by saying that she wants that her husband

¶13

-3-

¶14

(respondent no.2) should give the entire salary in her hands and only then she will live with her husband.

¶15

Sub-section (4) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides as under:-

¶16

“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. –

¶17

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.”

¶18

Considering the facts of the case coupled with the statement of wife (revisionist no.1), who says that she will live with her husband only if a separate rented accommodation is hired for her and her child, the parents and other family members of her husband live separately and the husband should give the entire salary in her hands, this Court is of the opinion that the wife (revisionist no.1) wants to live with her husbandrespondent no.2 only on her terms / dictates.

¶19

It appears that the revisionist-wife is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, as was held by the court below.

¶20

There is no illegality in the findings of learned court below to this extent. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.

¶21

The Criminal Revision thus fails and is dismissed with the observations as above.

¶22

Dated 09^th October, 2013

¶23

Rawat

Smt. Taranjeet Kaur and Another v. State and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Taranjeet Kaur and Another v. State and Another

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

Atul Patwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Taslim and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Urmila Sharma

Thakur Ji Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Vipin Kumar Vs Km. Chesta Minor

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another