Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hanuman vs Nisha And Others on 20 July, 2022
CRR-249-2022 -1-
111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-249-2022
Date of Decision: 20.7.2022
Hanuman ..... Petitioner
Versus
Nisha and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Rohit Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the
present revision petition impugning the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby on an appeal filed
by the respondent-wife, the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month granted by
the learned JMIC, Rewari was enhanced to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per
month.
As per facts of the case, the petitioner was married with
respondent No.1 on 3.6.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After the
marriage, they were blessed with a son. However, matrimonial discord took
place between the husband and wife and on account of the same, the
respondent-wife filed a petition for grant of interim maintenance. It was
contended by the respondent-wife that the husband is a habitual drunkard
and is a man of bad habits. She was harassed persistently on various petty
issues and finally shunted out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner in
March 2019. She stated that the petitioner husband has a monthly income of
Rs.60,000/- and she has no source of income and thus, is solely dependent
on her parents to meet her day to day expenses. On appreciating the
arguments of both sides, the learned JMIC accepted the petition filed by the
1 of 4
respondent-wife and granted her maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month vide
order dated 20.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-wife filed
an appeal praying for increasing the maintenance granted @ Rs.4,000/- per
month to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, which was accepted by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and granted interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month vide order dated 26.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the view taken by learned Appellate Court is totally unsustainable in the
eyes of law. He submits that the petitioner has produced oral as well as
documentary evidence on record. He submits that the petitioner and
respondent No.1 were married on 3.6.2009 and they lived together for 10
years. The respondent-wife left the matrimonial home not because of the
cruelty and harassment by the petitioner, however, she was not ready to live
with the parents of the petitioner and wanted to live separately, which was
refused by the petitioner. He submits that the respondent-wife deserted and
neglected the petitioner since March 2019 without any rhyme and reasons.
The petitioner convened Panchayat for settling the dispute amicably,
however, the same remained unsuccessful due to the adamant behaviour of
the respondent-wife. He has submitted that the respondent-wife has filed the
petition only to extract money and thus, has levelled false and frivolous
allegations. He has submitted that the respondent-wife has not produced any
salary certificate or income proof of the petitioner and thus, there being no
evidence on record regarding the income of the petitioner, the learned
Appellate Court had drawn wrong conclusion in increasing the maintenance
from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month. He also submits that
the agricultural land measuring 103 Kanal 14 marlas taken into
2 of 4
consideration by the Courts below belongs to the father of the petitioner and
which is not in his name, thus, the view taken by the learned Appellate
Court, is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and same deserves to be set
aside.
Heard.
The relationship between the husband and wife is not disputed.
They both got married on 3.6.2009 and blessed with a son. Evidently, the
wife is living with the parents and has the responsibility of a minor. There is
nothing on record showing that the respondent-wife has any independent
source of income. Besides this the petitioner has failed to produce any
evidence on record substantiating the allegations that the respondent-wife
left the matrimonial home alongwith the minor without any rhyme and
reasons. The learned Courts below have taken into consideration the
agricultural land measuring 103 Kanal and 14 Marlas owned by the father of
the petitioner, which may not be in the name of the petitioner, however, for
consideration of maintenance to be granted the Court is to justify in taking
into consideration the overall facts and circumstances on record and does
reasonable guess work as well. The petitioner is the husband of respondent
No.1, who has the responsibility of a minor as well, without any
independent source of income. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the plight
of a mother looking after herself and a minor without their being any
independent source of income. The petitioner is an able bodied person. As
per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments, the
husband is legally and morally responsible to look after his wife and
children. The petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility and duties
towards his wife and the minor child. The learned trial Court had granted
3 of 4
maintenance of only Rs.4,000/- per month for the wife and the minor.
Keeping in view the circumstances prevalent, the maintenance of Rs.4,000/-
per month for both the mother and the minor was totally unjustifiable and
the learned Appellate Court has rightly enhanced the same to Rs.10,000/-
per month. In the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds no
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, thus, the
petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
20.7.2022 JUDGE
sharmila
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
