GUNVI Vs. SANDEEP BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Criminal Revision is to the impugned order dtd. 14/9/2021, vide which the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana (for short "the Family Court"), had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 20,000.00 per month.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order would show that it had been noticed that the petition had been filed by the minor through her natural guardian and next friend i.e.Smt. Archana Bhatia, who is the wife of the respondent-Sandeep Bhatia. The petitioner is stated to be born on 29/7/2007. The marriage between Archana Bhatia and Sandeep Bhatia-respondent had taken place on 29/8/2006 and compromise is stated to havebeen effected on 21/9/2010 and a decree of divorce was passed thereafter, on 29/3/2011. The Family Court, had dismissed the petition filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. after taking into consideration the entire record and evidence. Para 4 of the divorce petition filed under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1955") was reproduced in para 23 of the impugned order and as per the same, it was noticed that it was mutually settled between Archana Bhatia and the respondent-Sandeep Bhatia that an amount of Rs. 6,50,000.00 would be paid by the respondent to Archana Bhatia, by way of permanent alimony, maintenance (past, present and future), dowry articles, stridhan, jewelery etc. and it was further specifically stated that it had also been settled between the parties that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,50,000.00 would include the past, present and future maintenance of child i.e. Gunvi-petitioner. It was observed that the averments in the divorce petition were unambiguous and that the statement of Archana Bhatia recorded in petition under Sec. 13-B of the Act of 1955 revealed that she had specifically stated that she would remain bound by the terms and conditions as enshrined in the said petition and the statement of the said Archana Bhatia was recorded on two occasions and on each of the said occasions, Archana Bhatia had stated that she would remain bound by the pleadings i.e. the pleadings specifically pertaining to the settlement on behalf of herself i.e. Archana Bhatia and also on behalf of her daughter-Gunvi. It was also observed therein that the statement of Archana Bhatia recorded on 29/9/2010 also revealed that she had undertaken to remain bound by the terms and conditions as enshrined in the mutual divorce petition. TheFamily Court had relied upon various judgments in this regard and observed that the Court could not allow any person to commit the breach of undertaking given to the Court and held that the persons would be bound by their pleadings. It was also observed that in the matter in hand, an application for interim maintenance had already been dismissed by the same Presiding Officer, who had decided the mutual divorce petition between the parties and it had been specifically observed by the said Court that a false claim had been raised therein. In order dtd. 13/2/2019 passed by the said Court, in para 7 of the order, it was clearly mentioned that in para 4 of the mutual divorce petition, the said Archana Bhatia had received an amount of Rs. 6,50,000.00 on account of full and final settlement on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her minor child namely Gunvi. Further, reference had also been made to the Panchayati Rajinama (Ex.Rl) which also revealed that it had been clearly mentioned therein that the minor child Gunvi would remain with Archana Bhatia for remaining part of her life and it would be only Archana Bhatia, who would be responsible for the upbringing, education and marriage of Gunvi. To the similar effect, reference had also been made to affidavit of Archana Bhatia (Ex.R2), another Panchayati Rajinama (Ex.R3) and another affidavit of Archana Bhatia (Ex.R4). Even evidence of PW1 Gaurav Katyal, who is the brother of Archana Bhatia, was considered and from his cross-examination, it was noticed that it was categorically admitted by him that Archana (his sister) was taking the amount of Rs. 3,25,000.00 on behalf of minor Gunvi for her past, present and future maintenance and would not claim anything from Sandeep Bhatia or his parents and even the aspect with respect to compromise and futureexpenses to be borne by Archana Bhatia, with respect to minor, was also stated by him to have been admitted by his sister. It was further submitted by him that the compromise was genuine and contained the signatures of Archana Bhatia. It was noticed in the said order that the petitioner had produced only two witnesses and the second witness PW2 had not even offered himself for cross-examination and in fact, Archana Bhatia, who was the key witness, had herself not stepped into the witness-box and thus, adverse inference had been drawn against her.

(3.) On the other hand, it was noticed that RWl-Sandeep Bhatia had categorically deposed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 6,50,000.00 for the maintenance of Gunvi and Archana Bhatia and although, he was cross-examined at length but nothing came out of the same to support the case of the applicant-Gunvi. Further, the evidence of said RW1 to the effect that after the decree of divorce had been passed, the said Sandeep Bhatia had remarried and had school going children and also had the responsibility of his old widow-mother, wife and children upon himself and with great difficulty, he had arranged Rs. 6,50,000.00, after having taken a loan from his friends and relatives and that he was only doing a private job and no other business and was earning Rs. 15,000.00 per month, was taken into consideration. After considering the evidence and the documents on record, the Family Court had rejected the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in the judgment and decree passed on 29/3/2011, there was no mention with respect to the details of the payment of the amount of Rs. 6,50,000.00 and held that the same would not make a difference, as the entire pleadings and evidence clearly showed that the saidamount was received on account of full and final settlement by Archana Bhatia on behalf of herself and her minor child. Accordingly, petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.