Damyanti and Thakur Dass V. Thakur Dass and Damyanti

CRR/3069/2010

AI Insights

The case involves two criminal revision petitions arising from a maintenance allowance dispute between Damyanti and Thakur Dass, initially adjudicated by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Damyanti, the wife, sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging cruelty and neglect by Thakur Dass, her husband. The Family Court awarded her Rs. 4,000 per month, which Thakur Dass contested, claiming his income was lower than assessed. Damyanti, in turn, sought an increase in the maintenance amount. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, after reviewing the evidence and circumstances, dismissed both petitions, maintaining the awarded maintenance amount and rejecting the claims for adjustment in the maintenance figure.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808746 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 125, Cr.P.C, Sections 498-A and 406, IPC
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS KUMAR; MANINDER ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS KUMAR; MANINDER ARORA
• Keywords: Cruelty; Dowry; Maintenance allowance; Salary assessment
• Section: 125; 406; 498-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 14, 2013 1. CRR-3069-2010 Damyanti …Petitioner Versus Thakur Dass …Respondent 2. CRR-910-2012 Thakur Dass …Petitioner Versus Damyanti …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRR-3069-2010) and for the respondent (in CRR-910-2012) Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRR-910-2012) and for the respondent (in CRR-3069-2010). NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above captioned two criminal revision petitions, as the same have arisen out of the judgment dated 20.7.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C, for grant of maintenance allowance, bearing No. RBT 561, dated 25.3.2009/13.8.2005, which was filed by the wife, Damyanti. CRR-3069-2010 & CRR-910-2012 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.6.1982, the marriage of Damyanti and Thakur Dass was solemnized at Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated, but no child was born out of the said wedlock. Damyanti presented a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance allowance, against her husband, Thakur Dass. It was asserted that at the time of marriage sufficient dowry and gifts etc. were given, however, Thakur Dass was not satisfied. It was further stated that Damyanti was being treated with cruelty. It was also alleged that without any rhyme or reason, she was being thrashed by Thakur Dass. The husband, Thakur Dass, even refused to take care of the basic needs of his wife, Damyanti. Seeing no other option, Damyanti initiated the proceedings attracting the mischief of Sections 498-A and 406, IPC, against Thakur Dass. She further averred in the petition that Thakur Dass was earning `18,000/- per month, therefore, adequate maintenance allowance was sought from her husband. 3. Thakur Dass appeared before the learned Court below and filed his written statement stating that Damyanti was never subjected to any kind of harassment or cruelty on the pretext of insufficient dowry. The allegations levelled by her were refuted. However, the relations as husband and wife were not denied. He also averred that Damyanti had sufficient source of income to meet her day-to-day expenses. It was also averred that she had 2 CRR-3069-2010 & CRR-910-2012 rental income of `3,000/- per month from House No. MCF-478, Near Baselwa Colony, old Faridabad. The said house was alleged to have been purchased by Thakur Dass. He further averred that he was an employee in Escorts factory. 4. In order to substantiate her case, Damyanti appeared as PW-1, while she examined her father, Chunni Lal, as PW-2. To rebut the evidence produced by the wife, Damyanti, Thakur Dass himself appeared as RW-3, and also examined four witnesses, namely, Smt. Suman, the landlord of the parties, as RW-1; Smt. Omwati, the neighbour of the parties, as RW-2; Lovely, a former tenant in the shop of the parties, as RW-4; and Jasbir Singh, another neighbour of the parties, as RW-5. Thakur Dass also placed reliance on the affidavits, dated 20.10.2003 (Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2.). 5. On the basis of the material and the evidence led by both the parties, the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, concluded as under:- “36. At this stage, it shall not be out of place to mention that the photocopies of the salary-slips of the respondent are available on record. The latest salary- slip is for the month of August, 2009. The photocopy of this salary-slip shows that the gross salary of the respondent is Rs. 17,422/-. Against this gross salary, a sum of Rs. 9,322/- is being deducted towards loan etc. and the carry home salary of the respondent is Rs.8090/-. As far as the total deduction is concerned, 3 CRR-3069-2010 & CRR-910-2012 it shows that it is more than 50% of the total salary of the respondent and out of this total deduction, a huge sum i.e. Rs. 4,000/- per month is being deducted towards loan. The above mentioned figures show that there is apparent effort, on the part of the respondent to scale down his carry home salary, by drawing advance. This unnecessary deduction is nothing but an attempt to avoid the payment of higher maintenance allowance. In my considered opinion, the respondent is not entitled to take advantage of his own wrongs and, therefore, I hold that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, his income is to be assessed more than Rs. 12,000/- per month. 37. If the above mentioned amount is taken into consideration, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the parties, their respective liabilities and other relevant factors such as educational and social status, in my opinion, it shall be just and proper to award maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner. The point of determination no. 2 is, therefore, answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner. 38. In view of my findings of the above mentioned two points of determination, the present petition succeeds. Hence, the same is hereby allowed, awarding the maintenance allowance to the petitioner @ Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of filing of present petition till further orders. However, any amount if paid by the respondent towards ad- interim maintenance allowance shall be set off. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance allowance immediately. File be consigned to the 4 CRR-3069-2010 & CRR-910-2012 record room.” 6. In Criminal Revision No. 3069 of 2010, filed by Damyanti (wife), a prayer has been made for grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of `10,000/- per month from the date of application and litigation expenses to the tune of `20,000/-. In the other Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2012, Thakur Dass (husband) has prayed that the learned Court below has wrongly assessed his income as `12,000/- per month, whereas as per the documents available on record, his carry home salary was `8,090/- per month. He further submitted that in view of his carry home salary, the amount of maintenance, to the tune of `4,000/- per month, awarded to Damyanti, was on higher side. A plea has also been raised that the wife had her own income, therefore, she was not entitled to the maintenance allowance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. 8. It has come on record that the gross salary of Thakur Dass was `17,422/-, out of which a sum of `9,322/- was being deducted towards loan etc. and, as such, his carry home salary was `8,090/-. In other words, more than 50% of the total salary of Thakur Dass was being deducted. The unnecessary deduction appears to have been managed to avoid the payment of higher maintenance allowance. Unavoidable deductions like income tax 5 CRR-3069-2010 & CRR-910-2012 etc. have to be counted in favour of the husband, but the loan and deduction on account of Provident Fund etc. cannot be taken as a ground for awarding lesser amount of maintenance. From the totality of the circumstances of the case, the learned Court below had rightly come to the conclusion that the carry home salary of the husband could be assessed as `12,000/- per month. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the parties. The amount of `4,000/- per month, awarded to Damyanti, from the date of filing of the petition, cannot be said to be unreasonable in any manner. The learned Court below has awarded appropriate amount of maintenance to Damyanti, therefore, there is no scope for enhancement and reduction, and, as such, both the petitions sans merit and are hereby dismissed. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE January 14, 2013 Pkapoor 6 "