Basically, I see this judgment in line with another recent one where interim maintenance was denied to a wife qualified as beautician. I think the main thing in both judgments that the child of couple was staying with father, so the usual sympathy for mother as well as need for child support being paid to mother did not arise.
Though such situations where child is left with father are somewhat rare, the main point to understand is there is no such rule that “you will have to pay some maintenance to wife” – a convenient quote often made by lawyers. Maintenance will be decided based on details and merit of the case.
Full judgment text below:
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
In the Court of Ms.Neha Nohria, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Naraingarh.
Case No.25-2 of 2014.
Date of Instt:18.9.2014.
Date of Order:22.9.2015.
Seema D/o Sh.Ram Nath w/o Sh.Kuldeep Kumar, House No.21, Ward
No.8, Naraingarh, District Ambala.
…Petitioner/applicant.
Versus.
1. Shri Kuldeep Kumar son of Sh.Ram Naresh,
2. Sandeep Kumar son of Sh.Ram Naresh,
3. Ram Naresh son of Sh.
4. Nirmala Devi wife of Ram Naresh,
all residents of village Tehi, Post Office Darajpur, Police Station
Thana Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar.
5. Karamjeet Kaur wife of Sh.Ravi Kumar.
6. Ravi Kumar son of not known, both residents of village Sherpur,
P.O.Chhachharauli, District Yamuna Nagar.
…..Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12,18,19 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Present : Sh.Munish Bakshi, counsel for petitioner.
Sh.Hemant Bindal, counsel for respondents no.2 to 6.
Sh.Pankaj Bindal, counsel for respondent no.1 .
Order on interim relief:
Applicant/petitioner has come up with the averments that her
marriage with respondent no.1 was solemnized on 16.1.2013 at Chawla
Palace, Naraingarh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time
of marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given. However, on the day of
marriage, all the respondents raised demand of Swift car and
Rs.10,00,000/- in cash before Phere ceremony in the pandal. But due to
intervention of the close relatives of parties, marriage was solemnised.
However, after marriage, all the respondents again raised their demand
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
of Swift car, Rs.10,00,000/- cash and gold ring for respondent
no.2(Devar). Even jewellary of applicant/petitioner was taken by
respondent no.1 and 4. It is averred that after complainant became
pregnant, respondents enhanced their maltreatment and harassment and
gave beatings to her. On 8.10.2013, all the respondents hatched a
criminal conspiracy and abused complainant, gave her slaps,fist blow ad
kick blows on face, leg and chest due to which health of complainant
became detoriated . On the next day when blood started oozing,
respondents no.1,2,4 and 6 got her admitted in Shri Rishiram Hospital,
Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. Respondents told doctor that they are not
having money for treatment. Complainant informed her parents who
came in the hospital with money. On 9.10.2013, she gave birth to a male
child who was much weak. It is averred that when complainant and her
child came home from hospital, respondents again started demand of
swift car, ten lac and gold ring. On 22.10.2013 on the festival of
Karwachoth, all the respondents misbehaved with the complainant. On
2.11.2013, all the respondents again raised their demand of swift car, ten
lac and gold ring. On 11.11.2013 all the respondents gave beatings to
complainant in a room. Her father came and respondents turned out the
complainant and her minor child from the matrimonial home. Panchayat
was convened and due to intrvention of the respectables, the complainant
and respondent no.1 filed a divorce petition with mutual consent under
section 13B of HMA. First statement was recorded and case was fixed
for recording of second statement for 10.9.2014. It is averred that on
3.9.2014, respondent no.1 came in the parental home of complainant and
raised demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- for giving second statement. On
5.9.2014, respondents no.1,4 and 5 came and again repeated their
demand. On 10.9.2014, respondent no.1 stated in the Court that he made
first statement under some pressure .Therefore, petition under section
13B HMA was dismissed. It is averred that complainant/applicant is
aggrieved person and has been subjected to domsestic violence at the
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
hands of respondents. Respondent no.1 is drawing salary of Rs.45000/-
per month as he is serving as Officer in a factory under the name and
style of Polypack at Yamuna Nagar. Therefore, she is entitlted to interim
maintenance at this stage.
2. Upon notice, respondent no.1 appeared and filed reply in
which he denied averments/allegations with regard to demand of dowry
by him and his family members. He stated that marriage of petitioner with
him was very simple marriage and only some customery gifts were
exchanged between both the families. Respondent no.1 and complainant
are living separately from the rest of his family in a rented house. It is
denied that demand of 10,00,000/-, swift car and gold ring etc was made
by him or his family members. It is averred that the complainant and her
family members are very sharp minded persons and they want to grab
money from respondents. Complainant was admitted in the morning of
9.10.2013 by the respondent no.1 in Rishi Ram Memorial Hospital in
Model Town, Yamuna Nagar because of labour pain due to premature
delivery complications. She gave birth to a male child on the same day by
caesarean surgery and all the expenses of delivery /treatment were borne
by respondent no.1. It is averred that the child was born in 8th month
due to which he was premature and required special care/treatment.
Hence, he was shifted to Chaitanya Hospital, Chandigarh. Respondent
lived with complainant with full care, love and affection but the attitude
of complainant and her family members was not good towards
respondents. It is averred that on 14.11.2013 father of complainant called
respondent no.1 to his house at Naraingarh. When he reached there,
family of complainant misbehaved with him by saying that he has not
given any facility to their daughter. In the night, her father, brother and 10
other relatives alongwith some strangers came to his house armed with
dangerous weapons and started quarrelling with him and took away
complainant and her premature baby forcibly. It is further averred that on
14.11.2013 to 6.3.2014, he was not allowed to meet his infant premature
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
baby and was forced to give mutual divorce. A compromise was then
executed between parties on 6.3.2014. It is admitted that petition under
section 13B of HMA was filed under pressure of complainant’s family
and complainant received Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent no.1 in the
Court as alimony and remaining Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time
of recording second statement in the Court. No medical treatment to child
was given by complainant and her parents. When custody of premature
baby was given to respondent no.1, his condition was critical and Harnia
Surgery was advised. On 9.9.2014, the date on which second statement in
divorce petition was to be recorded, complainant and respondent no.1
jointly patched up the matter and complainant executed affidavit that she
will not file any complaint/petition or any other application against the
respondent and custody of minor child will also be given to respondent
no.1. No demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was raised. It is denied that respondent
no.1 is drawing salary of Rs.45000/- per month. It is averred that
complainant is M.A.-Hindi and was working as teacher before marriage
in Shivalik International School, Naraingarh. She is running a boutique
and is not in need of money. With these submissions, it is prayed that
petition be dismissed with costs.
3. In separate reply filed by respondents no.2 to 6 they had
reiterated the averments made by respondent no.1 in his reply.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner/applicant argued that
petitioner is aggrieved lady within the ambit of Domestic Violence Act as
she has been harassed mentally and physically by all the respondents
under criminal conspiracy. Since she was forcibly thrown out of her
matrimonal home, she is presently dependent upon her parents. Therefore,
at this stage, respondent no.1 is liable to pay her maintenance as well as
expenses for the rental accomodation. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents refuted the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and
contended that respondents always treated the petitioner with love and
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
affection. It was applicant/complainant whose behaviour was not good.
Even her parents abused respondent no.1. It is then argued that premature
child is being taken care of respondent no.1 as his custody is with him. It
is also argued that petitioner has herself left the minor child who being
very weak remains ill. Hence, she is not entitled to any relief at this stage.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel of parties
and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and careful perusal of case file, position that transpires is that
relationship between parties is admitted . Marriage of applicant/petitioner
with respondent no.1 was solemnized on 16.1.2013 and a male child was
born out of the said wedlock. It is also admitted that said child remains ill
and was premature at the time of his birth. The allegations leveled by
complainant against respondents are that they have treated her with
cruelty by raising demand of dowry, gave beatings to her and
subsequently turned her out of matrimonial home on 14.11.2013. On the
contrary, respondents have also stated that applicant/petitioner use to
harass them and even took Rs.1,00,000/- as settlement in the shape of
alimony after executing compromise and affidavit in this respect. They
have also asserted that complainant merely wants to grab money from
them as she alongwith her father left the matrimonial home on
14.11.2013. Meaning thereby, both the parties have leveled allegations
and counter allegations against each other. These assertions by parties
require evidence to prove the same. At this stage, it is admitted that a
petition under section 13B HMA was filed which was subsequently
dismissed as respondent no.1 backed out from the same and
Rs.1,00,000/- was given at that time to the petitioner. Moreover, at that
time, custody of minor child who was born premature and remains ill was
given to respondent no.1. It further implies that liability upon respondent
no.1 at this stage is far more than upon the complainant with regard to
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
care of minor child. That apart, parties have been living separately since
14.11.2013 as has been admitted by them. So, allegations qua domestic
violence require enquiry in the shape of evidence.Therefore, at this stage,
without appreciation of evidence, it is not appropriate to pass any interim
order.
7. Accordingly, present application is hereby dismissed.
Needless to state, this order shall have no bearing on the final merits of
the case.
Pronounced:22.9.2015. (Neha Nohria)
SDJM/Naraingarh.
Note : This order comprises of six pages and all the six pages have been
checked and signed by me.
vandna. (Neha Nohria)
SDJM/Naraingarh.
22.9.2015.
Seema Vs Kudeep Kumar and others.
Present : Sh.Munish Bakshi, counsel for petitioner.
Sh.Hemant Bindal, counsel for respondents no.2 to 6.
Sh.Pankaj Bindal, counsel for respondent no.1
Arguments on application under section 23 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 for grant of interim relief
heard. Vide separate order of even date, application has been dismissed.
Now case is adjourned to 21.10.2015 for evidence of applicant at own
responsibility.
(Neha Nohria)
SDJM/Naraingarh.
22.9.2015.