Kuldip Kaur v. Hans Raj and Another

IN THE HIGH

Kuldip Kaur

Hans Raj and

CORAM: HO

Present: -Mr. M

NIDHI GUPT

C dated 16.04.20 petitioner has S.A.S. Nagar,

L impugned ord submitted that was not in job the admitted re duty of respon maintain herse aside. N

I case file in gre COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR

CRR(F Date of Dec

Versus another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI M.S.Dhami, Advocate for the pe *** TA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition 024 whereby a petition filed un been dismissed by the learned Mohali. Learned counsel for the petition der has been passed on a wh t on the date of passing of the b as her services had been termin elationship between the petitione ndent No.1 to maintain her. T elf. It is accordingly prayed t No other argument has been raise have heard learned counsel for t eat detail.

RYANA AT CHANDIGARH F)-917-2024 (O&M) ision: 19.07.2024

.… Petitioner

.... Respondents I GUPTA etitioner(s) filed by the wife is to the order nder Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Principal Judge, Family Court, ner inter alia submits that the holly incorrect premise. It is impugned order, the petitioner nated. It is stated that in view of er and respondent No.1, it is the The petitioner has no means to that the impugned order be set ed on behalf of the petitioner. the petitioner as also perused the

r e , e s r f e o t e

P married to the born out of the

D petition under from the petit vide judgment finality.

In Section 125 C proforma resp (Annexure P-amount of Rs. that the respon p.m. Vide or was granted to petition under

T is a governm Chandigarh. A salary of Rs.3 also come on helper at the Rs.9,296/- as e Senior Accoun erusal of the record of the case e respondent on 18.06.1994. Tw eir wedlock. One son died in an a Due to marital discord on 19.0 r Section 13 of the Hindu Marr tioner on grounds of cruelty. T t and decree dated 20.04.2018 w n the meantime, on 13.12.20 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitio ondent herein. Perusal of the pe 1) reveals that the petitioner ha 15,000/- p.m. for each of the app ndent is a government employee rder dated 25.01.2018, interim o each applicant. Now vide imp Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been di The undisputed facts on record a ment employee working as a G As per his salary slip of the year 31,930/- per month. However, u record that upto May 2019, th SGHS Charitable Hospital, So evident from her salary slip (Ex. ntant of SGHS Charitable Hospi

e shows that the petitioner was wo sons and two daughters were accident.

03.2016, the respondent filed a riage Act, 1955 seeking divorce The said petition was dismissed which is stated to have attained 16 the present petition under oner and one of the daughters/ etition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ad claimed maintenance for an plicants inter alia on the ground e and earning about Rs.60,000/- maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m pugned order dated 16.04.2024, ismissed. are that the respondent-husband Gardener in PSIEC, Sector-17, 2017 (Ex.A-1), he was drawing upon leading of evidence, it has he petitioner was working as a ohana on a monthly salary of . RW3/A) duly proved by RW2, ital, Sohana. What has weighed s e a e d d r / . n d - m , d , g s a f , d

with the learn that in her pet had failed to d with SGHS C proforma resp No.1/husband.

31.05.2019. A on 13.12.2016 not disclosed pertinent that R respondent be residing with namely, Jagjot of the petition marriage.

F maintaining no

T enacted to pr vagrancy and the maintenan herself". In th she was previo working, it ha However, no o ned Family Court in passing the tition under Section 125 Cr.P.C disclose two important factors: a Charitable Hospital, Sohana; b) pondent herein, has been in the . Admittedly, the petitioner rem As such on the date of filing pet 6, she was in job and was earnin to the learned Family Court i RW3/ the mother of the petition fore the learned Family Court a the respondent. Even the sec t Kaur RW4 deposed that she d ner/her mother and that the pet rom the above facts it was fou ot just his two daughters and a so The provision of Section 125 Cr rotect the abandoned wife, ch destitution. A bare reading of nce is admissible only to a wif he present case, it has now been ously employed. On a Court qu s been stated that the services of order of termination has been pla

impugned order of dismissal is . (Annexure P-1), the petitioner a) the factum of her employment and the fact that the daughter-care and custody of respondent mained in job from 07.10.2014 to tition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ng hand. However, this fact was n the first instance. It is also ner has supported the case of the and has revealed that she is also cond daughter of the petitioner, did not know about whereabouts titioner did not even attend her und that the respondent No.1 is on but also his mother-in-law. .P.C. is a social justice measure hildren and aged parents from the provision itself reveals that fe who is "unable to maintain n admitted by the petitioner that uery as to why she is no longer f the petitioner were terminated. aced on record by the petitioner. s r t - t o . s o e o , s r s e m t n t r . .

In any event, No reason ha working.

A Supreme Cou Harpreet Kau the wife albeit the Hon'ble qualifications in a position reduced the am

R Court in "Smt Others", 2260157, whe No. cros her her her inte fact hou are to s an a pro of h was mar to w idle lega can it is clear that the petitioner is as been given by the petitione At this stage, reference may be m urt in case of "Bhushan Kum ur (SC)": Law Finder Doc Id t qualified/previously employed, Supreme Court had held that that Wife possesses, there is no to also maintain herself in f mount of interim maintenance gr Reference may also be made to j t. Shilpashree J. M. & Others SCC OnLine Kar 36, rein it has been held as under:- "8. The records also disclosed 1 was working as is evident fr ss examination also reveals tha r mother. It is also evident from r desertion she continued to stay r mother itself and the allegation erested to stay with respondent t that at the instance of the pres use was taken on rent and now th e residing therein along with her stay with her mother-in-law an admitted fact that respondent ovision stores. Further, he is hav his mother and unmarried sister. s working prior to her marriag rriage she resigned the said job why she is incapable of working e and seek entire maintenance fr ally bound to make some efforts n seek only supportive maintenan

capable of maintaining herself. er as to why she is no longer made to judgment of the Hon'ble ar Meen v. Mansi Meen Alias # 547724. In the said case too, , was not working. Accordingly, t "However, having regard to reason why she ought not to be future…", and had accordingly ranted to the respondent wife. udgment of the Karnataka High s Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & Law Finder Doc ID # that before marriage petitioner rom her cross examination. Her at she was residing along with m her admission that, even after y in the rented house along with n does establish that she was not Nos. 2 to 4. It is an admitted sent petitioner No. 1, a separate he petitioners i.e., wife and child r mother, but she was reluctant d unmarried sister-in-law. It is t No. 1-husband is running ving responsibility of taking care Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 ge and it is asserted that after . But, there is no explanation as g now. She is not supposed to sit rom her husband and she is also s to meet her livelihood and she nce from her husband". . r e s , , o e y h & # r r h r h t d e d t s g e r s t o e

M material and Supreme Cour 352176 has he facts. The rele of the impugne m n co ra fa p w H in as

L above said find

A impugned orde

P

19.07.2024 Divyanshi

Most importantly, the petition relevant facts from the learne rt in Ram Dhan v. State of U. eld that it is the litigant's duty to evant findings of the learned Fam ed order are as under:- "As petitioner No.1 has maintenance and in order to esta eglected by her husband i.e. pre ogent and convincing evidence ather, at the time of filing of p act on the part of petitioner No etitioner No.2 Amarjot Kaur is r with her mother i.e. petitioner

1.05.2019, she was working in S Hospital Trust, Sohana, from w ncome of Rs.9296/- per month. ssigned by her for leaving the jo

Learned counsel for the petition dings, and the legal position as d As such, I find no ground is er. The present petition is hereby ending applications, if any, stand

Whether speaking/reasoned Y

(Emphasis supplied) ner has admittedly concealed ed Family Court. The Hon'ble .P. (SC): Law Finder Doc Id# o make full disclosure of all the mily Court contained in para 38 come up for the purpose of ablish the fact that she has been esent respondent, she has to lead e but she has failed to do so, etition, there is concealment of o.1 with regard to the fact that residing with her father and not No.1 and from 07.10.2014 to Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib, Eye where she was having monthly That even no reason has been ob at Sohana Hospital." ner is unable to controvert the discussed above. made out to interfere in the y dismissed. d disposed of.

(NIDHI GUPTA)

JUDGE ) d e # e f n d

f t t o e y n e e