Crl. Revision No. 265 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 265 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.02.2010 Narender s/o Umed Singh r/o village Sisan, District Sonipat, at present H.No.274/21, Roop Nagar Sonipat, District Sonipat. ....... Revision petitioner Versus Saroj wife of Narender and daughter of Lachhman Dass, r/o H.No. 288/7 (oii/7), Jain Bagh Colony, Sonipat. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. B.S. Bairagi, Advocate for the revision-petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, vide which it accepted the criminal appeal against the order dated 19.08.2009, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat, in a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.3000/- to Rs.6000/- as also directed that Saroj, wife of Crl. Revision No. 265 of 2010 2 the petitioner, has a legal right, to reside in his house at Sonipat, in which earlier both the parties were residing. 2. Saroj wife of Narender, petitioner (now respondent), filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , on the ground, that she was married to Narender, on 25.01.1998. The marriage was consummated, but no issue was born out of this wedlock. Narender, petitioner, on account of this reason, used to beat Saroj. He was habitual of picking up quarrels and used to treat Saroj with cruelty and usually insulted her on account of the reason that she was unable to conceive. He also forced Saroj to allow him to contract second marriage with her sister, so that he could get a child from her, but her parents were not ready to do so. In the month of April, 2009, the parents of Saroj, settled the marriage of her sister, with some other person, and when this fact came to the notice of Narender, petitioner, he picked up quarrel with her (Saroj) and insulted her parents and did not allow her to attend the marriage of her sister. On 03.04.2009 , the marriage of the sister of Saroj was performed, but Narender quarreled with her and did not attend the marriage. It was further stated that Saroj was thrown out of the house and she had been living with her parents. Saroj was having no means to maintain herself. She was also not having any house to reside. Ultimately, the complaint, referred to Crl. Revision No. 265 of 2010 3 above was filed. 3. In reply, it was pleaded by Narender, respondent (now petitioner) that the petition was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that Saroj had filed the petition, as a counter- blast to the divorce petition, which was filed by Narender. The marriage between the parties was admitted. It was also admitted that no child was born from this wedlock. It was further stated that Saroj was a lady of bad character having illicit relations with one Sushil Kumar of village Sisana. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. 4. After going through the record, the trial Court awarded Rs.3000/- per month, as protection money to Saroj and allowed her to reside in the house of Narender, situated in the village. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Saroj filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat , as stated above. 6. Feeling dis-satisfied the instant revision petition has been filed by Narender, petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the trial Court was right, in awarding protection Crl. Revision No. 265 of 2010 4 money to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month to Saroj, keeping in view the monthly salary of Narender as Rs.18,680/- and the carry home salary as Rs.14,650/- after deductions. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also an old widow mother to look after. He has further submitted that the Court below was wrong in awarding Rs.6000/- per month as protection money to Saroj. He has further submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Court regarding the residence of Saroj ,in the house of Narender at Sonipat, is also not correct. He has further submitted that the order of the Appellate Court, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The marriage between the parties, is admitted. It was also admitted that no child was born from the wedlock. It is evident from the record that the petitioner (Narender) is an Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department. The monthly salary of Narender is Rs.18680/-. After deductions according to him, his carry home salary is Rs.14650/-. No doubt, Narender stated that he has got old mother. The Appellate Court taking into consideration the overall income of Narender from all sources and other circumstances of the case, was right in holding that protection Crl. Revision No. 265 of 2010 5 money in the sum of Rs.6000/- per month, if awarded, would be reasonable as the wife is entitled to the same standard of living, as that of the husband. The Appellate Court was also right in holding that the sale of the house at Sonipat by Narender, by way of an agreement to sell, where he alongwith Saroj were earlier living, in favour of his brother, was nothing, but a device to frustrate the right of Saroj to reside in the said house at Sonipat. Since no sale deed had been executed in favour of his brother by Narender regarding the sale of house at Sonipat, it could not be said that he had sold it. The Appellate Court was right in holding that since Narender was the owner of the house, Saroj had a right to live therein. The orders passed by the Appellate Court, does not appear to be in any way illegal or arbitrary. The same does not warrant any interference and are liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE February 02, 2010 dinesh