Nihal Singh vs Ramrati And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1147 P&H

CRR-404-2022                                                                      1

115            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH

                                                       CRR-404-2022
                                                       Date of Decision: 3.3.2022

Nihal Singh
                                                             ..... Petitioner
                                   Versus
Smt. Ramrati and others
                                                             .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:       Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition impugning the

order dated 20.1.2022, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi

Dadri has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and thus confirming the

order dated 16.3.2021 passed by the learned JMIC, Charkhi Dadri directing to

pay Rs.3 lacs in lumpsum for maintenance and compensation for the injuries

including mental torture and emotional distress caused to the respondent-wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the marriage

of the petitioner with the respondent-wife took place about 35 years ago. Out of

this wedlock one daughter namely Anita was born. He has contended that the

respondent-wife herself started residing separately with her sister and then after

a gap of more than 30 years, she filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for

grant of maintenance. Thereafter, she filed application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

for enhancement of the same. He contends that the respondent-wife is living

separately since the year 1986 and even on that account the petition filed by her

was time barred. He submits that after the death of the brother of the petitioner

Kirpal in the year 1986, he performed Karewa marriage with the widow of his

1 of 3

brother with the consent of respondent No.1. He submits that on that account

respondent No.1 deserted the petitioner with her own sweet will and hence, she

is not entitled for maintenance in view of the statutory provisions of Section 125

Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of

Madras High Court in Sivapugal vs. V. Meena and others, 2019(3) MadWN

(Cri) 433. To buttress his arguments, he submits that both the Courts below have

failed to appreciate the statutory provisions and judicial precedents and hence,

drawn a wrong conclusion in granting the maintenance of Rs.3 lacs in lumpsum

for maintenance and compensation.

Heard.

Admittedly, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent

No.1 is not in dispute. The petitioner was not only married with respondent No.1

but they were blessed with a daughter also. From the records, it is apparent that

the petitioner performed Karewa marriage with widow of his brother and

thereafter, respondent No.1 alongwith her daughter was left at the mercy of her

destiny. Respondent No.1 is a household lady without any source of income.

Despite many Panchayats convened, the petitioner behaved with heartless

attitude and discharged no responsibility towards both the deserted mother and

daughter. After their desertion, respondent No.1 and her daughter started living

separately in the same village. Respondent No.1 deposed before the Family

Court that she was forced to live in a hut. The marriage of her daughter Anita

was also performed by other persons, whereas, the petitioner did not help in any

manner whatsoever. The Family Court appointed a Local Commissioner for

verifying the plight of respondent-wife and it was confirmed that the respondent-

wife was living in house located in the agricultural land, which was 2-3 Kms

away from the village. On the perusal of the report of the Local Commissioner,

2 of 3

the petitioner was requested to provide a proper accommodation to the deserted

wife but he refused to the same. It was further found that during the pendency of

the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the petitioner clandestinely

transferred his land in favour of the son from his second wife. After appreciation

of the complete facts and circumstances of the case, the Judicial Magistrate

directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3 lacs in lumpsum for maintenance and

compensation for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress

caused to the respondent-wife. The petitioner preferred appeal against the same

and from the overwhelming evidence on record showing the conduct of the

petitioner, the same was declined. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

plethora of judgments has reiterated the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

which has been enacted in order to prevent the vagrancy and destitution. The

petitioner has turned blind towards the plight of respondent No.1 and her

daughter. Even if respondent No.1 had filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

for grant of maintenance after more than 30 years, there is no merit in the

argument of the petitioner that there is a delay on her part. The cause of action

for maintenance is continuing and thus, the arguments regarding delay in filing

the same is without any merit. The petitioner cannot wriggle out of his legal

responsibility in maintaining the respondent-wife.

I find no infirmity in the view taken by both the Courts below,

hence, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

                                                      (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
3.3.2022                                                   JUDGE
sharmila

                    Whether Speaking/Reasoned :       Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable :              Yes/No




                                        3 of 3