Delhi High Court
Mrs. Sushila @ Babli & Anr. vs Mr. Rambir Singh on 25 August, 2009
Author: Manmohan Singh
.* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ I.A. No.4491 /2007 & C.S. [OS] No.717 /2007
Reserved on: 18th August, 2009
% Decided on: 25th August, 2009
Mrs. Sushila @ Babli & Anr. ...Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Anand Yadav, Adv.
Versus
Mr. Rambir Singh ....Defendant
Through : None
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. Smt. Sushila @ Babli, Plaintiff No.1 and Master Mohit,
Plaintiff No.2 have filed the suit for maintenance under Sections 18 and
20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and for
permanent injunction against Sh. Rambir Singh, husband of plaintiff
No.1. The marriage between plaintiff No.1 and defendant was
solemnized at Village Phool Siras, Delhi on 9 th February 1997 as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies. The father of Plaintiff No.1 persuaded the
plaintiff No.1 to marry the defendant Mr. Rambir Singh who was
engaged in transport business and was earning around Rs.10,000/- per
month at the time of marriage.
2. It is contended that the defendant at the time of marriage
concealed various material facts from the father of Plaintiff No.1.
Plaintiff No.2 was born on 1st March 1999 out of the wedlock of
plaintiff No.1 and defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that after the
marriage, the defendant and his other relatives started torturing the
plaintiff No.1 and they were making demands of dowry. The father of
Plaintiff No.1 also made a payment of Rs.45,000/- on 8th February 2001
for the purpose of construction of the house of the defendant. The
Plaintiff No.1 has two brothers who are elder to her and both of them are
married and also have children. The defendant after marriage insisted
that the plaintiff No.1 should bring Rs.2 lakhs from her father otherwise
the plaintiff No.1 would not be permitted to stay in the matrimonial
house.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that after receiving the
compensation of land, another sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid to the
defendant on 30th December 2002 for starting the business of building
material. However, the defendant and his mother beaten plaintiff No.1
on 19th March 2003 while playing Holi. The plaintiff No.1 thereafter
made a complaint with the Anti Dowry Cell on 3 rd April 2003. Before
the Anti Dowry Cell, the defendant apologized for his conduct and
stated that in future he will keep in mind that the defendant will not
demand money, dowry etc from the father of Plaintiff No.1 and he will
also return back the loan to the father of Plaintiff No.1 and will also
properly maintain his wife and his children i.e. Master Mohit but his
behaviour did not change and the defendant again started making
demand for dowry and tortured the plaintiff No.1 and forced the plaintiff
No.1 to leave the village in the month of September 2003. Since then
the plaintiff No.1 is residing with his father and brothers along with the
son i.e. plaintiff No. 2.
4. As per the plaintiff No.1, the defendant kept on threatening
the plaintiff and other family members of dire consequences if they
continue to keep the plaintiff with them and also demanded further
dowry of Rs. 1 lakh from the plaintiff No.1 in September 2006. It is
further submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has not looked
after the plaintiffs who are being supported by the father of plaintiff
No.1. Since the plaintiff has no source of income whatsoever and there
is no property in the name of the plaintiffs, they are totally dependent
upon the father of Plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiffs also cannot expect
anything from the two elder brothers of Plaintiff No.1, therefore, the
present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs.
5. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has
deserted the plaintiffs and he is willfully neglecting the plaintiffs and
treated the plaintiff No.1 with cruelty and has also refused to pay any
amount for maintenance of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiff No.1 is
entitled to maintenance from the defendant as per law.
6. The plaintiffs have also stated that the defendant has
inherited property from his father late Sh. Mange Ram at village Jatipur,
District Sonepat and the said properties are ancestral and Joint Hindu
Family properties in the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff claims an
amount of Rs.16,750/- as maintenance towards house rent, house
maintenance such as electricity, water, kitchen expenses, clothing,
school and tuition fee and medical charges and other expenses required
by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant is also liable to be
restrained from selling the said land, therefore, injunction is also sought
by the plaintiffs restraining the defendant from selling, transferring or
creating any third party interest in any manner over the possession of
agricultural land and other properties at Village Jatipur, District
Sonepat, Harayana to any one else.
7. On 9th May 2007, the court passed the interim order
restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, parting with
possession in any manner the property consisting of land comprising in
Khewat No.36/35, Khatouni No.53, Khasra No.1/22/2, 1/23, 1/24, 6/3,
6/4, 12/25/2, 13/20,13/21/1 and Khewat No.37/36, Khatouni No.54 &
55, Khasra NO.15/10 and Khasra No29/2/3 to the extent of his share in
the said lands as Jamabandi of village Jatipur, Tehsil and District
Sonepart, Haryana to the extent of share of Sh.Rambir Singh as per
revenue records and house of the defendant in Village Jatipur, Tehsil
and District Sonepat, Haryana. Vide order dated 20 th May 2008, the
right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed. The
plaintiffs produced the evidence by way of affidavit of plaintiff No.1
who has proved the following documents in support of her case:-
i) Copy of Notice dated 29th January 2001 received by the father
of plaintiff and the same is Exhibited as Ex.PW 1/1.
ii) Copy of complaint dated 3rd April 2002 made by the plaintiff
to the Dowry Cell exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2.
iii) Copy of undertaking in writing dated 25 th June 2003 given by
the defendant to SHO Crime Women Cell, Nanak Pura, New
Delhi as ex.PW-1/3.
iv) Copy of complaint dated 22nd February 2007 made by the
plaintiff to Deputy Commissioner, Women Cell, Nanak Pura,
New Delhi exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4.
v) Copies of some of the receipts of payment of tuition fee of
plaintiff No.2 exhibited as PW-1/5/1 to PW-1/5/12.
vi) Copies of receipt and prescription of the expenses incurred in
respect of treatment of plaintiff No.2 exhibited as PW-1/6/1
to PW-1/6/11.
vii) Copies of revenue records of Village Jati Khurd, District
Sonepat, Haryana as Ex. PW-1/7/1 to Ex. PW-1/7/7.
viii) Case Sheet and X-ray slips of Safdarjung Hospital as Ex. PW-
1/8/1 to Ex. PW-1/8/2.
8. I have gone through the pleadings, documents as well as the
ex parte evidence produced by the plaintiff. The entire case of the
plaintiff has gone un-rebutted. No written statement has been filed by
the defendant nor any interest has been shown by the defendant in the
matter. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayers
(a) and (b) of the plaint. With regard to prayer (a), since the plaintiff
No.1 has submitted that the defendant is earning Rs 10,000/- per month
in the transport business at the time of marriage, I feel it is appropriate
that the defendant pays a sum of Rs 7,500/- per month to the plaintiffs as
maintenance from the date of fling the suit. The outstanding amount
shall be paid by the defendant within 2 months from today and the
defendant shall keep on paying the said amount regularly by 7 th of each
English calendar month . The rest of the prayers are not pressed by the
plaintiffs during the course of the final hearing in the matter. The
decree be drawn accordingly.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J
AUGUST 25, 2009
SD
