IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217 CRR-F-248-2019(O&M)
Date of order: 18.09.2024
Meetu @ Ritu …..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Amandeep …..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
*****
1.Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Jind, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed holding the petitioner not entitled to final or interim maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife inter alia submits that the petitioner is a mere villager. On the other hand, the respondent is working as a mason in a factory and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is submitted that during marriage life of the petitioner, she was beaten mercilessly by the respondent and his family. The parents of the petitioner spent about Rs.3 lakh in the marriage and besides gave sufficient dowry articles. However, the respondent and his family were not satisfied and demanded motorcycle and used to humiliate and taunt the petitioner on one pretext or the other. A demand of Rs.2 lakh was also made for construction of their house on vacant land. On 31.07.2014, the petitioner was given merciless beatings by the respondent and his family members.
In this respect, the petitioner has even filed FIR No.422 dated 06.06.2015 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station City Jind, which is still pending. All the istridhan of the petitioner was forcibly kept by the respondent and his family. The petitioner is a villager and not earning anything. The respondent is working in a polythene carry bag factory and getting Rs.12,000/- per month.
3. It is further submitted that the impugned order is not in the eyes of law as the same has been passed merely on account of the fact that the petitioner was unable to give the particulars i.e. the date, time and birthplace of her first child/son in the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C.; and had only disclosed regarding the second child/daughter namely Arti on 29.09.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner being uneducated and rustic villager was unable to provide the said details regarding her son. However, the same constitutes no ground for dismissal of her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has also wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is earning only Rs.6-7 thousand per month. It is reiterated that the respondent is earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
4. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.
6. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 17.11.2010. Two children were born out of their wedlock who are admittedly in the care and custody of the respondent/husband. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately since 31.7.2014. Present petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 12.11.2014.
7.The provision of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
“(4)No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim proceeding, as the case may 2001, Section 2 for “allowanc husband under this section if maintenance and expenses of be,] [Substituted by Act 50 of ” (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).] from her 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.”
8. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led before it, the learned Family Court has returned the clear finding that it is the petitioner who had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. In fact, the petitioner in her cross-examination before the learned Family Court as PW1 (Annexure P3) has unequivocally stated as follows: –
“…It is correct that both minor children are living with respondent. I do not kept the children volunteered stated that earlier, I want to take my children. It is incorrect that I threw both the children. I never filed any application for taking the custody of children in any court.I do not live with my husband; I want to leave separate….”. (Emphasis is mine)
9. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner by her own admission has stated that she does not wish to live with the respondent-husband. The petitioner has further admitted that she has not filed any application seeking custody of her minor children. It has also come on record that the minor children were aged between 1-3 years of age when the petitioner left the matrimonial home. Clearly, therefore, under the above Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance.
10. Further, there is not an iota of evidence on record that the respondent is earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is the categoric finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent is doing private job in a factory and is earning only Rs.6-7 thousand per month. Besides that, the respondent is also maintaining the minor children along with his old, aged mother. On the other hand, the petitioner has no such responsibility. The petitioner is living separately at her parental home. Admittedly, the petitioner is able bodied. However, she claims to be not working.
11. It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. Especially keeping in mind, the fact that she is able-bodied. The purpose of S ction 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. The said provision cannot be permitted to be misused to allow able bodied wives to sit idly at home while the husband works, earns, looks after the day to day, emotional, financial, and physical requirements, and maintains the minor children as also his other dependent family members.As such no ground is made out that calls for interference in the impugned order. Present petition accordingly stands dismissed.
12.Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta) Judge
18.09.2024