Mandeep Singh Sandhu vs Sonika Sen & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3460 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.119 of 2020 Reserved on: 13th July, 2021 Decided on : 3rd August 2021

.

    Mandeep Singh Sandhu                                                      ..Petitioner

                                    Versus





    Sonika Sen & Others                                                   ...Respondents.
    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

    For the petitioner              :        Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate

    For the respondent
                           r        :
                                  Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate for

                                  respondent No.1.

________________________________________________________________ THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

CASE NUMBER Misc. Application No.4771 of 2019, Decided on BEFORE JUDICIAL 17.12.2019, by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, MAGISTRATE Court No.6, Shimla.

Seeking modification/review of the above captioned order, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. Vide order dated 16.03.2017, learned Judicial Magistrate had granted

monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to Smt. Sonika Sen wife of the petitioner Mandeep Singh Sandhu.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before learned Sessions Court. Vide judgment dated 17 th May, 2018, learned Sessions Judge did not find merits in the same and dismissed it.

4. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of learned Judicial Magistrate by filing an application No.4771 of 2019 and submits that the respondent-wife had concealed her income in the application filed under Section 12 of the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner has annexed a certificate received from Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd., which reveals that the respondent-wife was offered as an agent vide letter dated 16 th June, 2016. Her annual package was Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide a

.

detailed reasoned order dismissed the said application primarily on the ground that the said package pertains to the year 2016.

6. Challenging the said dismissal, the petitioner has come up before this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING.

7. The application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act filed by the aggrieved person-complainant nowhere mentions that she was not working. In the application dated 15 th May, 2015, she specifically states that she has to maintain her mother, who has no source of income.

8. The business of insurance agent depends upon the agencies and the business such agent procures for the company. Even in the normal times, the income of an insurance agent fluctuates. In the current Covid time, procuring

business would have been certainly very difficult even for insurance agents. I have gone through the impugned order, which is very well reasoned and it calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed.

9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

10. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition filed by the original male respondent is dismissed.

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.

August 03, 2021 (ps)