CRM No.M-29297 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-4.10.2010 Jagpal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Smt.Virpal Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.N.Pillania, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement and relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that the marriage of Virpal Kaur (respondent-wife) was solemnized with Jagsir Singh, brother of Jagpal Singh-petitioner No.1 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Ratia, Distt.Fatehabad. After the solemnization of the marriage, they lived and cohabited as husband and wife at village Kherewala in a joint family. Two daughters, namely Rupinder Kaur and Shaminder Kaur, were born out of the said wedlock. Unfortunately, Jagsir Singh, first husband of Virpal Kaur (respondent- wife) had died in an accident in the month of September, 2002. Thereafter, she performed a Karewa marriage with Jagpal Singh (petitioner-husband) as per customs on 1.10.2002 and they started living together as husband and wife alongwith the two minor daughters. 2. According to the respondent-wife that sufficient dowry articles were given by her parents at the time of her marriage, but the petitioners were not satisfied with it. They treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. They gave beatings and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home. She started residing with her brother and mother. As the petitioner- husband has withdrawn from her society without any reasonable cause, CRM No.M-29297 of 2010 (O&M) 2 therefore, she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed on 8.9.2005. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened and the matter was resolved. She and her children were sent to live with her husband in village Kherewala, but in vain. The petitioners again started torturing her in this relevant connection. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the respondent-wife claimed that the petitioner-husband and his father have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry and are guilty of penal law as well as provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the respondents filed an application (Annexure P1) under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioner-husband and his father in this context. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Magistrate accepted the application, by virtue of impugned order dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P2), the operative part of which is as under:- “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the source of income of the respondents, they are directed to give maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioners jointly. They are also directed to give some accommodation in their shared household being occupied by respondent No.2. If this is not possible, then respondents would further make payment of Rs.1500/- per month as rent of the accommodation which can be taken by the petitioners themselves. Respondents are also directed not to torture the petitioners either physically or mentally. With these observations, the present application stands disposed of. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties to the petition and a copy be also sent to the SHO of the concerned police station.” 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P2), the petitioners filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure P3). 6. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and filed the present petition, challenging the impugned orders of the Courts below, invoking the CRM No.M-29297 of 2010 (O&M) 3 provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner -husband is earning Rs.3000/- per month, so, the maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife and her children are on the higher side, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record that the petitioner-husband is a driver on private vehicle and it is a matter of common knowledge that such driver would naturally earn more than Rs.6000/- per month. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-husband is also joint owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of land measuring 15 acres depicted in the jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 (mark- B). That means, he is also owner of 5 acres of agricultural land. The respondent- wife is an unfortunate mother of the two minor school going daughters. So, taking it into consideration, the trial Magistrate has rightly granted the maintenance to them. 10. Not only that, the first appellate Court rejected the claim of the petitioner-husband as well, vide impugned order (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is as under:- “It is not disputed that Smt.Virpal Kaur was earlier married to Jagsir Singh, a deceased brother of her husband Jagpal Singh. He met his ultimate fate in a road side accident. After his death, she performed Karewa marriage with respondent No.1. It is also a fact that two daughters were born out of her previous wedlock and a son namely Dilpreet Singh was born from the wedlock of petitioner Smt.Virpal Kaur with Jagpal Singh respondent. There is consistent version of petitioner Smt.Virpal Kaur and her brother Amrik Singh that the former used to be harassed for insufficiency of dowry and physically assaulted. Even, it is also proved from their statements that demand for dowry was met and when the same became unbearable, then that led to filing of a criminal CRM No.M-29297 of 2010 (O&M) 4 case for the commission of an offence punishable under sections 498-A and 406 of IPC against the respondents and which is pending for trial before SDJM, Ratia. Then despite lengthy cross-examination, the testimony of Smt.Virpal Kaur and her brother Amrik Singh PW2 could not be shattered in any manner. Even, none of the respondent dare to step into the witness box and controvert the stand taken by the petitioners with regard to demand for dowry, maltreatment and turning out of the matrimonial home by them. Lastly, there is nothing on the record to show that prior to filing a petition under Section 12 of the Act either of the respondents ever offered to maintain the petitioners. So, keeping in view of financial status of the parties and the appellants-respondents having sufficient property as well as income, the learned trial Magistrate did not commit any irregularity while directing the appellants-respondents having sufficient property as well as income, the learned trial Magistrate did not commit any irregularity while directing the appellants- respondents to pay the petitioners maintenance as well as giving a direction to them for arranging an accommodation or in the alternative giving them a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as rent for hiring the compensation. So, the findings recorded in this regard by learned trial court are hereby ordered to be affirmed and the same do not call for any interference.” 11. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the controversy between the parties, the courts below have rightly fixed Rs.5000/- as maintenance and Rs.1500/- per month as rent of the accommodation and negatived the claim of the petitioners in this respect. Such pure well-articulated and well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited powers conferred under section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. CRM No.M-29297 of 2010 (O&M) 5 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge