Crl. Revision No. 3291 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 3291 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 19.09.2011 Amit Kaushik ....Petitioner Vs. Smt. Monika Kaushik ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 04.09.2010 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad awarding a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent-Monika Kaushik (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') on account of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.01.2005 at New Delhi. It has been alleged by the respondent that sufficient dowry befitting to the status of the petitioner was gifted by her parents at the time of marriage. But, the petitioner was not satisfied with the articles of dowry. The respondent further alleged that the petitioner is a habitual drinker and is a drug addict. He used to live under the influence of drugs and give merciless beatings to her, therefore, it had become difficult for her to stay with him. The efforts, so made by the respondent for her rehabilitation at the house of the petitioner, had failed, therefore, Crl. Revision No. 3291 of 2010 (O&M) 2 she started living at her parental house. Thus, by way of petition under Sections 125 Cr.P.C., she claimed for maintenance while stating that the petitioner is an Engineer and was earning about Rs.30,000/- per month. Upon notice, the petitioner controverted the allegations on various grounds and levelled counter allegations while stating that his married sister, who was deserted by her husband, was also living in the same house, to which, the respondent was objecting. She being quarrelsome lady, used to pick up quarrels with him as well as his widowed mother and sister on trivial matters. It was also alleged that the respondent having deserted him without any reasonable cause, is not entitled to any maintenance. It was further alleged that the respondent, besides filing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., had also filed three other cases against him. Both the parties led evidence in support of their pleadings. The respondent, in order to support her case, examined herself as PW-1. She has also placed reliance on the photocopy of the appointment letter of the petitioner. To the contrary, the petitioner has examined himself as RW-1 and Sudershan Sharma (RW-2). He has also placed reliance on one documents i.e. CD of recording of telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the respondent and Hindi transcription of telephonic conversation between them. The trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence, accepted the application of the respondent and awarded her a sum of Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance. Having heard the rival contentions, it may be observed Crl. Revision No. 3291 of 2010 (O&M) 3 that the Family Court appears to have scrutinized the evidence in the right perspective. The evidence led by the respondent establishes that her father had spent a lot of money at the time of marriage, but the parents of the petitioner were not happy. They used to taunt and insult her on the pretext of bringing inadequate dowry. The respondent has also testified that the petitioner was having bad habits; he is habitual drinker and used to take drugs as well. He always used filthy language towards the respondent; thrashed her brutally and beaten her mercilessly. To the contrary, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent herself is guilty of her matrimonial wrongs and she has lost his faith very shortly. She was in the habit of picking quarrels with his parents and sister. While appreciating the evidence of both the parties on a comparative table of mind and conscience of the Court, it transpires that the respondent was not behaving properly and was dealt with cruelty by the petitioner. As regards the income, it transpires that there is no rebuttal to the evidence led by the respondent that the petitioner was earning about Rs.17,000/- per month. As such, the maintenance, as awarded by the Family Court, Faridabad, to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable or on the higher side. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 19.09.2011 JUDGE ajp