Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Shobha Devi on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 9 of 2021
Date of Decision: 6.1.2021.
___________________________________________________________
[
.
Sunil Kumar .........Petitioner.
Versus
Shobha Devi ..........Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioner: Mr. B.N. Mehta, Advocate, through Video
Conferencing.
For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, through Video
Conferencing.
______________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Cr.MP(M) No. 2406 of 2019
By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf
of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the
accompanying criminal revision petition. Mr. Anup K. Rattan, learned counsel
for the non-applicant/respondent states that he does not intend to file reply to
the application and has no objection in case, prayer made in the application
is allowed.
Averments contained in the application, which is duly supported
by an affidavit, clearly reveal that delay in maintaining the accompanying
petition is neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account
of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant
and as such, same deserves to be condoned.
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, delay in
filing the appeal, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been
explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
.
Be registered.
Cr. Revision No.9 of 2021
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 13.6.2017,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP, in Criminal Appeal
No. 54/2016, having been filed by the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred
to as the "petitioner") under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act (in short "the Act"), laying therein challenge to order
dated 1.12.2016, passed by the learned JMIC Manali, District Kullu, HP, in case
No.16/2014, whereby the complaint under Section 12 of the Act having been
filed by the respondent-wife (herein after referred to as "the respondent")
came to be allowed, petitioner-husband has approached this Court in the
instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid judgment/order
passed by the courts below.
2. Precisely the facts, as emerge from the record are that marriage
inter-se the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the month of
February, 2014. Since respondent-wife was allegedly given beatings by the
petitioner-husband and was not provided with the sufficient means to sustain,
she lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, alleging therein that the
petitioner besides giving beatings to her also used to harass her constantly on
account of dowry. Respondent-wife alleged that the petitioner after
consuming alcohol used to demand dowry from her. She also alleged that the
petitioner tortured her mental and physically and not allowed her to pursue her
studies and as such, appropriate maintenance order under Section 20 of the
Act, may be passed in her favour.
3. Aforesaid petition filed by the respondent came to be resisted on
.
behalf of the petitioner by way of detailed reply, whereby he stated that
respondent is not his legally wedded wife and at no point of time, he caused
any harassment to her. He claimed before the court below that petition has
been filed on the false grounds and as such, same may be dismissed. Both the
parties in support of their respective contentions led evidence. Learned trial
Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the
respective parties allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section
12 of the Act and restrained the petitioner from committing any cruelty and
acts of domestic violence against the respondent. Besides above, court
below also directed the petitioner to provide accommodation to the
petitioner on rent i.e. one room, kitchen, bathroom and toilet or in alternative
to provide accommodation in his own house. In addition to aforesaid, court
below while directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the tune
of Rs. 2500/- pm to the respondent-wife from the date of the order, also
directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
order/judgment passed by the learned JMIC Manali, District Kullu, the
petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act in the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, which also came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 13.6.2017. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has
approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash
and set-aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, and
order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the learned trial court below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
.
records of the case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record, this Court finds that the claim of the respondent-
wife primarily came to be contested on the ground that she is not legally
wedded wife of the petitioner, but careful perusal of pleadings as well as
evidence adduced on record by the respective parties clearly reveals that
respondent-wife not only successfully proved on record that she is legally
wedded wife of the petitioner, rather was being harassed and tortured by the
petitioner.
7. Respondent-wife while deposing has PW1 successfully
corroborated and supported her averments as contained in the application
filed under Section 12 of the Act. She deposed before the court below that
after her marriage, she resided with the petitioner in his house at village Sheel,
P.O. Deem, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. and thereafter, she came to Kullu
alongwith petitioner-husband to pursue her studies. Besides above,
respondent-wife deposed that she was constantly harassed and tortured by
the petitioner under the influence of liquor and was compelled to stay in the
house of her aunt at Kullu. With a view to prove injuries allegedly suffered by
her on account of beatings given by the petitioner, respondent tendered on
record her MLC (Mark A). She also stated that petitioner husband had issued
notice Ext.PW1/A to her. Cross-examination conducted on this witness
nowhere suggests that the petitioner husband was able to extract anything
contrary to what she stated in her examination in chief, rather in her cross-
examination, she categorically stated/reiterated that marriage was
solemnized before the SDM Rampur Bushahr and marriage certificate was
.
issued after the marriage, which is lying with the sister of the petitioner-
husband.
8. Petitioner-husband while deposing as RW1 stated that he used to
study at ITI Shamshi, Kullu and cleared his course in the month of June, 2014.
While stating that he does not know the respondent-wife, petitioner claimed
before the court below that he used to work in the hotel at Ghaziabad after
having completed his course. In his cross-examination, the petitioner denied
his signature on the marriage affidavit Ext.PC. He also denied that the
marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in SDM Office, Rampur Bushahr.
Petitioner also deposed that he does not know that Sh. Jeewan Dass is a
witness to the affidavit of marriage Ext.PF.
9. RW2 i.e. Rajeev Singh, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Deem,
deposed that he has brought the requisite record Ext.RW2/A. Though
petitioner specifically denied the factum with regard to marriage of him with
respondent, but careful perusal of documents Ext.PB, PC, PE and PF clearly
reveals that petitioner and respondent had applied before the Executive
Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr for attestation of their marriage affidavit.
Affidavit, if perused in its entirety, clearly reveals that petitioner had accepted
the respondent as his legally wedded wife and had also undertaken to
maintain her. Besides above, perusal of legal notice signed by the Ramesh
Negi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner-husband clearly suggests that
respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she had resided with
the petitioner at village Sheel and thereafter, left for Manali to pursue her
studies. On account of aforesaid evidence, it stands duly established on
record that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
.
10. Respondent with a view to prove domestic violence placed on
record copy of MLC (Mark-A), perusal whereof clearly shows that the
respondent was taken to Civil Hospital, Manali, for treatment by LC Santosh
Kumari No. 216 of PS Manali and she had suffered injuries on her body. There is
no evidence worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that
the respondent has any kind of income and as such, she being legally wedded
wife of the petitioner is well entitled for maintenance order as has been
ordered in the proceedings filed by her under Section 12 of the Act.
11. Having carefully perused documentary evidence as well as oral
evidence adduced on record by the parties to the lis, this court finds no
illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment/orders passed by the courts
below and as such, no interference is called for. Material available on record
clearly suggests that monthly income of the petitioner rightly came to be
assessed as Rs. 8,000/- by the courts below and as such, he being husband of
the respondent has been rightly directed to pay sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to
the respondent from the date of order of compensation. However having
taken note of the fact that the petitioner earns only Rs. 8000/- per month,
compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the court below
deserves to be reduced to sum of Rs. 5,000/-.
12. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above,
order/judgment passed by the courts below is modified to the extent that the
petitioner-husband shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- instead of
Rs. 10,000/-, however, rest of the order is upheld. Accordingly, the present
petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending application(s), if any.
.
6th January, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
r to
