KUSUM PATHAK Vs. RAMPREET SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 341 of CrPC assailing the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 159/2016, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the appellant has instituted the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC before the Court below which has been registered as Case No. 159/2016, wherein the respondent has produced the forged and fabricated pay slip for the month of May, 2016 issued by his employer, which shows that net payable salary of the respondent was Rs. 8,121/-per month. It is further submitted that the respondent is working on the post of Junior Engineer (QA) in Uttam Value Steels Limited, Wardha. Accordingly, the appellant moved an application under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC with a request to summon the concerned record/ certificate from the employer directly so that actual salary received by the respondent can be ascertained. The learned Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the respondent has already produced the pay slip which shows his salary as Rs. 8,121/- per month.

(3.) Thereafter the appellant has filed writ petition before this Court against the order dated 16.05.2017 of Family Court. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2018 has set aside the order dated 16.05.2017 and directed the trial Court to summon the original copies of the documents/certificate from the employer with regard to salary of the respondent, which was produced by respondent's company, namely, Uttam Value Steels Limited, Bhu Gaon Link Road, Wardha, Maharashtra which mentioned his account No. 336800363 and his salary as Rs. 22091/- per month. This shows that the respondent has tried to mislead the Court, therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC contending that the respondent has filed forged and fabricated certificate with a view to avoid payment of maintenance to the appellant, hence penal action be taken against the respondent. The trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application. Hence, this appeal.