BALJEET Vs. POONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the instant revision is to the order passed by Family Court, Bhiwani under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding Rs. 3,500/ - per month w.e.f. the date of filing the petition. It is not the quantum of maintenance but only entitlement of respondent that has been questioned. The petitioner in fact is posted in the Army and amount of maintenance has been determined on the basis of his carry -home salary of Rs. 16,123/ - without reference to total emoluments that he may be drawing. It has also not come on record how much amount is by way of voluntary deductions or otherwise. For that matter, however, it is for the respondent to seek her remedy for enhancement of amount of maintenance. The first challenge to the impugned order is that Family Court at Bhiwani did not have territorial jurisdiction as the marriage was admittedly solemnized at Hansi in District Hisar and couple lived as husband and wife at Najafgarh, New Delhi. In support of this contention the petitioner's counsel has relied upon an order dated 10.12.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, returning the complaint to respondent to file the same in appropriate Court as the Court at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction. That order was passed in a criminal complaint for the acts of cruelty and mis -appropriation of dowry articles for which the cause of action is stated to have arisen either at Hansi the place of marriage or Najafgarh at New Delhi. I would hold that the said order would not be relevant at all for the purpose of proceeding under Section 125 of the Code.

(2.) SUB -section (1) of Section 126 Cr.P.C. says that proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district: -

(3.) IT is, however, contended by learned petitioner's counsel that the respondent was not entitled to the award of maintenance in view of the judgment of matrimonial Court, Hisar, granting decree of divorce in favour of petitioner. The ground of divorce was cruelty and desertion and accepted by the matrimonial Court. This contention deserves to be rejected outrightly because the respondent clearly asserted in her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she has come to know that the petitioner has obtained ex parte decree of divorce by playing fraud and had already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is apparent from the judgment and decree of divorce (Annexure P -2), that the said petition was instituted on 05.02.2010 and ex parte divorce decree was passed on 14.12.2010. The respondent was proceeded against ex parte in the divorce petition on the report of alleged refusal to received summons.