Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMMO/221/2011 on 28 December 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 221 of 2011
Date of decision: 28.12.2011
Durga Nav Jyoti son of late Sh. Mansha Ram, resident of Village Padhian, Tappa Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.
…Petitioner.
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Kumari Reema wife of Shri Durga Nav Jyoti, Village Padhian, Tappa Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., presently residing with her father Shri Jagdish Kumar, resident of Sulhari, Tappa Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.
2. Nandani minor daughter of Shri Durga Nav Jyoti at present residing with her natural guardian, her mother, Kumari Reema, respondent/complainant No.1.
...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit K.Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 3.8.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2009 affirming judgment dated 11.5.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar in complaint No. 18-1 of 2009 awarding ` 7,000/- per month maintenance etc. to the respondents. _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondents have filed complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner praying various reliefs as prayed in the petition. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing reply. He has denied the claim put forward by the respondents. The learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the complaint on 11.5.2009 as per operative part of the judgment. The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 11.5.2009 which has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on 3.8.2011, hence petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as against the claim of maintenance of ` 6,000/- the Courts below have awarded maintenance to the respondents at the rate of ` 7,000/- per month. It has been submitted that the respondents have failed to prove the income of the petitioner and the Courts below have wrongly assumed that the petitioner is earning ` 15,000/- per month. It has been submitted that the Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence to this effect. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondents have claimed maintenance at the rate of ` 6,000/- per month each and as against the claim of the respondents, the Courts below have allowed only ` 7,000/- per month to both the respondents. He has submitted that in this way the amount awarded by the learned Courts below is not in excess of the prayer made by the respondents. It has also been submitted that the two Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. In petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. evidence cannot be re-appreciated.
4. The petitioner has appeared his own witness in the court below as RW-1. In his statement he has nowhere stated about his monthly income. In the cross-examination, he has denied that he is earning ` 25,000/- per month but he has not stated how much he is earning per month. On the contrary, the respondent No.1 in her affidavit dated 5.3.2009 which was tendered in evidence has stated that petitioner is earning ` 25,000/- per month. The Courts below have assessed the income of petitioner ` 15,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that according to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is a working woman. But this fact has not been admitted by respondent No.1. The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the income assessed by the two Courts below of the petitioner is on the higher side.
5. In petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. evidence cannot be re-appreciated. No perversity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. No other point has been urged. There is no merit in the petition, hence the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
December 28, 2011
.
( Kuldip Singh ), (GR)
Judge.