V S MANN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was married to Ms.Purnima, respondent No.3, in the year 1995. After some time, strains developed in their marital relations. In the year 2001, the petitioner filed a petition against the respondent No.3 for dissolution of his marriage with her by a decree of divorce. On the other hand, on a complaint by respondent No.3, a case under Section 406/498-A IPC was registered against the petitioner and his parents. On 7th of June, 2001, the respondent No.3 made an application to the Army Commander, Headquarters(Northern Command) for grant of maintenance allowance. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply thereto. The Army Commander, eventually, on 29th of October, 2001, made an order on the said application of respondent No.3 sanctioning deduction @ 22% from the pay and allowances of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed instant writ petition.

(2.) The stand of the petitioner is that he never neglected to maintain the respondent No.3 and, as a matter of fact, he had made sufficient provision for the same by depositing a sum of Rs.2 lacs in fixed deposits, out of which she has fraudulently withdrwan Rs.1 lac on 22nd of June, 2001, immediately after submission of her application for maintenance. In addition, she is alleged to be having an income of about Rs.5,000.00 per month. It is pleaded that the respondent No.3 instead of making an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the proceedings for divorce, made an application to the Army Commander, Headquarters(Nothern Command) for grant of maintenance allowance and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief(respondent No.2) passed the impugned order for deduction @ 22% from the pay and allowances of the petitioner without considering the merit of claim and recommendations of the Commanders in chain of command.

(3.) The respondent No.3 in her counter-affidavit denied that the petitioner has made any provision for her maintenance by way of fixed deposits or that she herself was having an income of Rs.5,000.00 per month.