Qualified Wife not entitled to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- J.B. Garg, J.
Criminal Misc. No. 1476-M of 1993. D/d. 20.7.1993

Capt. Dr. Hamesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Nisha Sahi and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. M.L. Merchea, Advocate.
Update : In Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000
Justice J.G. Chitre, J. of Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments
JUDGMENT

J.B. Garg, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been moved alleging that application moved under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pending in the Court of Shri R.P. Nagrath, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, be quashed.
2. It has been alleged that the petitioner was married to Dr. Nisha Sahi on 31.1.1990 and a daughter was also born out of the wedlock on 10.11.1990. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage it was never disclosed to the husband that Dr. Nisha Sahai was already married and she obtained divorce prior to her second marriage with the petitioner. The respondent-wife has deserted the petitioner-husband and the marriage broke down. Thereafter, she joined Chawla Nursing Home at Jalandhar and was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. The petitioner was serving as a Short Services Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army at the time of his marriage. It has further been alleged that the respondent-wife is now a PCMS-I Officer in the service of Punjab Government and receiving salary of Rs. 6,000/- per mensem. This is supported by the appointment letter Annexure P-3 dated 3.8.1990 and other correspondence placed on record by the husband. In another petition, which was moved by Dr. Nisha Sahi against the petitioner-husband there is a specific allegation that the petitioner wife is a qualified MBBS PCMS-I Doctor in the ESI Dispensary at Jalandhar.
3. The respondent wife has not filed any reply to the present petition despite three opportunities which were given to her counsel on 21.4.1993, 12.7.1993 and even for today.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 12 of his petition which shows that more than a dozen adjournments have been obtained by the wife unnecessarily and he is being dragged to Jalandhar. It is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is un-rebutted that the wife who is in the Provincial Civil Medical Service has an income of about Rs. 6,000/- per mensem which is sufficient for maintenance of herself and the infant. The present petition succeeds and the proceedings pending under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby quashed.

Petition allowed.
------------------------------------------------------

Post a Comment

Do let us know what you think about this post and Please no spamming here.
And in case you need any legal advice, please visit http://g8.geekupd8.com/forum.

[facebook][blogger]

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Adv.Batish} {twitter#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Twitter} {google-plus#http://g8.geekupd8.com/+pb} {pinterest#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Pinterest} {youtube#http://g8.geekupd8.com/YouTube}

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget