RSA No.716 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.716 of 2011 Date of decision: July 15, 2011. Dharamvir ... Appellant(s) v. Smt. Raj Bala ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Smt. Raj Bala had filed a suit for permanent maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. She pleaded in the suit that she was married with Dharamvir, defendant to the suit, on 27.5.1985 in village Talakaur, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. From the loins of defendant-appellant and from the womb of the plaintiff- respondent, two daughters, namely, Sarla and Harpai were born. Appellant- defendant husband had retained the custody of the two daughters. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that she was turned out of the house by her husband on 8.7.1997. Dharamvir husband had filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. As a counter-blast to this petition, she had filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was referred to Lok Adalat which was withdrawn. In the suit, it was stated that Dharamvir had RSA No.716 of 2011 -: 2 :- not kept his commitment made before the Lok Adalat and has performed a second marriage with one Mamtesh. It was stated that when the parents of the plaintiff wife objected to the second marriage performed by the appellant-defendant Dharamvir, not only he admitted the factum of second marriage but told them to do whatever they wished to do. It was admitted that an FIR was registered at the instance of plaintiff-respondent under Sections 498-A, 420, 506, 494, 406, 120-B IPC. In the suit, it was specifically stated that the appellant-defendant husband was in possession of agricultural land situated in village Taparian, Jainpur Sadhan and Chaparo, Tehsil Indri District Karnal and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month whereas plaintiff-respondent wife was dependent upon her old age parents and had no source of income. The appellant-defendant husband has set out a plea of desertion on the part of the plaintiff-respondent wife. It was stated that he had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and a false case was registered against the appellant-defendant husband and furthermore, wife has already been awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000/- per month in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court formulated the issues and both the parties led their evidence. The trial court held that it is not disputed that the parties are legally married and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. The court further held that from the judgment Ex.D2, it is proved that interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded in favour of the aggrieved wife. The trial court further held that the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove that she was neglected by her husband. Rather, the two daughters born out of the wedlock of the parties were residing with the husband. RSA No.716 of 2011 -: 3 :- Thus, the trial court held that the wife is not entitled to the maintenance. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff-respondent wife filed an appeal which was accepted by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court held that it has been pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent wife that she was continuously harassed and humiliated by her husband for not bringing adequate dowry and she was turned out of the house on 8.7.1997. The lower appellate court further held that not only the wife had lodged a criminal case against the husband and his family members, she had also filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act for taking custody of the two daughters. The court held that it is apparent from the evidence that the aggrieved wife was neglected and it was a responsibility of the husband to maintain her. Having held so, the lower appellate court awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month, in addition to Rs.1,000/- awarded to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Shri Pritam Saini, Counsel appearing for the appellant- defendant husband, has assailed the judgment of the lower appellate court on the ground that two daughters born to the parties were brought up by the appellant-husband.. Counsel has submitted that this fact is sufficient to prove that the respondent-wife had herself left the matrimonial home and she was not neglected. This Court cannot ignore the well reasoned finding returned by the lower appellate court that the parties were involved in long drawn litigation. Respondent wife has been taking all steps for obtaining custody of her daughters; she had instituted a petition under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce and this petition was filed subsequent to the petition under RSA No.716 of 2011 -: 4 :- Section 125 Cr.P.C. instituted by the wife. The appellant-husband is having sufficient income. Besides that, he is an able-bodied man capable of earning minimum wages. In the present day era, Rs.3,000/- is a meagre amount for wife to maintain herself. This Court cannot ignore the factum of escalation of prices of the essential goods required for any individual. In the days of upward inflation, award of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the wife looks absolutely justifiable. Shri Saini has further submitted that award of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been held to be adequate by this Court also, therefore, the maintenance should be restricted to Rs.1,000/-. I am not inclined to accept this argument as this Court cannot venture to comment upon the evidence which was examined in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. So far as the evidence led in the present case is concerned, award of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance looks just and adequate. The lower appellate court has already clarified that the wife will be only entitled to Rs.2,000/- in these proceedings, in addition to Rs.1,000/- awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration no ground is made out to cause interference as no law point, much less a substantial one, has been raised before me. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 15, 2011. Judge kadyan