Criminal Revision No. 2724 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2724 of 2011 Date of decision : 4.11.2011. Parveen ................ Petitioner vs. Suman and others ................. Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Sh. Kunal Chhoker, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C. PURI, J. This is a revision petition directed by petitioner-husband against the judgment dated 27.5.2011 passed by Shri M.M.Dhonchak, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which the order dated 17.11.2010 passed by Ms.Shashi Chauhan, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Criminal Revision No. 2724 of 2011 2 Bhiwani, directing the respondent No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition on account of maintenance allowance and to provide her a room to reside in the shared house, was set aside qua respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the appeal preferred by the husband along with two others was dismissed qua petitioner-husband. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1 about 4½-5 years ago, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born from their wedlock. At the time of marriage her parents have given sufficient dowry articles as per their capacity. She further pleaded that the respondent No.1 is her husband, respondent No.2 is father-in-law, respondent No.3 is brother-in-law (Devar). They were greedy persons and were not satisfied and dowry articles given in the marriage and they used to taut her on that pretext and were demanding one plot and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. She pleaded that she suffered mental and physical cruelty on question of demand of dowry. She pleaded that after three months of the marriage respondent No.l got job of Computer Engineer at Noida and thereafter all the respondents asked the petitioner to bring Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and also one plot since the respondent no.1 has now got handsome job. She showed her inability and disability to meet such unreasonable demand and on this she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. After conceiving the female child the respondents become crueler towards her. She pleaded that her parents tried to resolve the matter but their request was not heard by the respondents and they remained adamant on their demands of dowry and ultimately on 26.2.2009 they refused to keep the petitioner and also to return her Istridhan. Criminal Revision No. 2724 of 2011 3 3. Upon notice, respondent appeared and filed reply and took up preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the present suit. 4. On merits, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has been of unsound mind prior to solemnization of marriage and the marriage of the parties was solemnized without disclosing this very fact to the parents of respondent No.1 and due to which she could not live properly either at her parental house or at matrimonial home after marriage. She remained all the time more aggressive and due to this abnormal behaviour of the petitioner all the respondents completely fed up. All the respondents tried to get her treated at PGIMS, Rohtak at Psychiatric department and she remained admitted there from 23.1.2009 to 4.2.2009 but she could not be cured and she continued the same activities towards the respondents. It has been further pleaded that father of the petitioner himself came to the house of the respondents and took away the applicant with him on 25.2.2009 and since then she has been residing with her parents with her own along with her minor child. Denying other averments, respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. In support of of her case, petitioner herself appeared as her own witness. On the other hand, respondent did not opt to lead any evidence. 6. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition of the petitioner and directed respondent No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the present petition on account of maintenance allowance. Respondents were further directed to provide her a room to reside in the shared house. It Criminal Revision No. 2724 of 2011 4 has been further directed that if the respondent No.1 fails to make the payment of the amount of maintenance and to provide her a room, the petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against respondents. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 17.11.2010, the respondents preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Shri M.M.Dhonchak, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bhiwani accepted the appeal of the appellants No.2 and 3 but dismissed qua appellant No.1 vide judgment dated 27.5.2011. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the present revision petition has been directed by the petitioner-husband. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case with his able assistance. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the trial Court has granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has a small house and it is not possible to provide a room to the respondent. The amount of maintenance granted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, @ Rs.3000/- in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is excessive, more so, when he is already paying maintenance @ Rs.2000/- in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 11. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the records of the case. 12. There is concurrent finding of fact that it is a matrimonial house of respondent where she was brought after the marriage. As per law a lady has a right to live in the shared accommodation. Nothing could be brought Criminal Revision No. 2724 of 2011 5 on the file that premises in question is not the shared accommodation. Both the Courts below have discussed the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts as mentioned in those judgments before granting the maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month and a room in the shared accommodation. No contrary authority has been produced during the course of arguments. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below does not call for any interference. The amount of Rs.3000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive in these days. 13. So, in these circumstances, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 04, 2011 sv