SC- 'No alimony for woman who desert husband'
Here is the full text of the Punjab & Haryana HC judgment upheld by SC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-24684 of 2008 (O&M)
POONAM …PETITIONER
VERSUS
MAHENDER KUMAR …RESPONDENT
Criminal Misc. No.M-24684 of 2008 (O&M)
Present: Mr.P.L. Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Marriage of Poonam (petitioner) with Mohinder Kumar (respondent) took place on 23.1.1998. Two sons were born out of the wedlock, who are residing with the respondent. The petitioner is residing with her parents. A case under Sections 406/ 498-A/ 149/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the instance of the petitioner against the respondent and others vide F.I.R. No.52 dated 17.2.2000 at Police Station City, Jind. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as vthe Code') claiming maintenance from the respondent alleging that he was running wholesale business of sale and purchase of utensils in the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Metal Store and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. This petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner left her matrimonial house on her own accord and that she was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month as she was M.A.B.Ed. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind, vide order dated 9.6.2007 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code. The petitioner went in revision against the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, although holding that the husband has not been able to prove that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself and, at the same time, affirming the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate that the petitioner-wife left the company of the respondent on her own accord. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code by the petitioner seeking reversal of the orders passed by both the Courts below.
I have heard Mr.P.L. Goyal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case.
The trial Magistrate, after framing issues, recording evidence, both oral and documentary, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the respondent or he was cruel towards her in any manner. Except her statement, the petitioner failed to examine any other witness in support of her case to prove ill-treatment, dowry demand and other allegations made in the petition. Even the parents of the petitioner did not come forward to support her case. The petitioner failed to join her husband even after the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the petitioner, was declined by the Court by holding that there was no desertion on the part of the respondent, rather the petitioner deserted her husband due to her own personal reasons. The petitioner did not take care of her sons, who are residing with the respondent. There is no allegation in the petition that she had ever asked the respondent for giving her the custody of the sons. The petitioner appears to be interested only in getting maintenance allowance and taking divorce from the respondent. The respondent is solely taking care of the children. To bring up two children single handedly is an onerous duty, which the respondent is performing and the petitioner is shirking. The petitioner, in her cross-examination, stated that after she left her matrimonial house, she never tried to contact the respondent or her kids. In the case of Smt.Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband, but a wife who has divorced on account of her desertion is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce. Failure of the petitioner-wife to prove sufficient grounds justifying her staying away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left the society of the respondent on her own accord. In these circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in declining the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being without any merit.
March 19 , 2009.
( MOHINDER PAL )
ak JUDGE
---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Case Status DISPOSED
Status of : Special Leave Petition (Criminal) 8854 Of 2009
POONAM .Vs. MAHENDER KUMAR
Pet. Adv. : MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR ASHRI
Subject Category : CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS RELATING TO MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.
Date of Disposal : 16/11/2009
Last updated on Sep 10 2010 Click Here for Latest Order
NIC
......
ITEM NO.31 Court No.10 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009
CRLMP.NO(s). 18899
(From the judgement and order dated 19/03/2009 in CRM No.
24684/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
POONAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHENDER KUMAR Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) CRLMP 18899/2009 c/delay in filing SLP
Date: 16/11/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.N.Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(Shashi Sareen) (Shashi Bala Vij)
Court Master Court Master
…………………..
'No alimony for woman who desert husband'
New Delhi, Nov 18 , 2010, DHNS:
In an observation with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court has said that a woman who deserted her husband and the matrimonial home and refused to return despite repeated requests was not entitled to maintenance.
Upholding a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a bench headed by Justice V S Sirpurkar said the law of the land did not allow maintenance in cases where the wife deserted her husband, children and the matrimonial home.
In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Poonam, who was married to Mahender Kumar of Jind on January 23, 1992, left her matrimonial home on March 18, 1998, alleging harassment and dowry demands. She also left her children.
Poonam later moved the family court, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. But Mahender Kumar filed an application before the court on February 20, 2002, praying for restoration of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.
She did not respond to the application, and Kumar was granted ex parte decree as it was construed that Poonam would not return to her matrimonial home.
Fresh appeal
Two years later, Poonam approached the family court again, seeking divorce — on the ground that she was living separately — and demanding maintenance.
Though the court granted her divorce, her appeal for maintenance was turned down.
The Supreme Court bench said: “You left the matrimonial home on your own, and now you want maintenance. Is this the law of the country? What is the justification for your staying separately?”
No ill-treatment
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Poonam challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, seeking maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month from Mahender.
The high court judgment said she had failed to prove that she was ill-treated by her former husband. Additionally, the court observed: “Failure of the petitioner-wife to justify her decision to stay away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left society of the respondent on her own accord.”
ITEM NO.31 Court No.10 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2009
CRLMP.NO(s). 18899
(From the judgement and order dated 19/03/2009 in CRM No.
24684/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
POONAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHENDER KUMAR Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) CRLMP 18899/2009 c/delay in filing SLP
Date: 16/11/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.N.Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.
see SUPREME COURT LINK
https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/pr%201889909p.txt
