SUDHIR KAPUR Vs. NEEL MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sudhir Kapur - petitioner has directed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short the Cr.P.C.) for quashing the orders dated 04.12.2010 and order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexures P-1 and P-2).

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Neel Mani respondent (herein) filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against her husband Sudhir Kapoor (petitioner-herein) alleging therein that their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites at Karnal on 1.9.1990. Out of their wedlock a son namely Chandek alias Chintu was born on 29.8.1991. However, the present petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the quantum of dowry given to Neel Mani and due to this Sudhir Kapoorhusband had been harassing her. She was being ill treated and was given beatings by the petitioner right from the marriage. It is alleged that one FIR No.96 dated 5.2.1993 under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC was got lodged against the petitioner but the same was compromised in this Court and the FIR was quashed vide order dated 26.5.1994. Thereafter, parties again started residing together at Panipat. However, a short while after the petitioner again started giving beatings to the respondent on trivial matters without any rhyme and reason and started raising demand of more dowry i.e. car and cash. Ultimately she was turned out of her atrimonial house in wearing apparels along with her son on 17.5.2000. FIR No.152 dated 19.5.2000 was again got registered against the petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act) against the respondent but the same was dismissed as the petitioner did not make payment of the maintenace pendente lite. He challenged the said Order before this Court which was dismissed. It has been alleged that the petitioner is having monthly income of Rs. 40,000/- to 45,000/- per month whereas the respondent is unemployed and is dependent upon her parents. She has sought maintenance of Rs. 8500/- plus Rs. 2000/-p.m. for her son.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he denid the allegations as raised in the petition and has alleged that father of the respondent has deposited a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- in her name, therefore, she is having sufficient income to maintain herself and her minor child. Earlier suit filed by the respondent was on false grounds, therefore, the same was withdrawn. The marriage of the parties was a simple marriage without any sort of pomp and show. Thus, question of demand of dowry etc. does not arise. It has been alleged that after the comproise in the first FIR, the petitioner and respondent lived together for seven years. But again the respondent went back to her parental house at her sweet will without his consent along with her brother on 17.5.2000. It has further been alleged that the divorce petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non payment of maintenance pendent elite. However, at that time his financial position was not good and he could not make payment of the maintenance. He was doing the job at the salary of Rs.4000/- per month in a company Indiyasoft at New Delhi. It has also been alleged that recital regarding income being Rs. 40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month in petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot amount to admission of the petitioner. If the same was ever an admission on the part of the petitioner the same is being withdrawn being an erroneous admission. It has also been alleged that the petitioner got his son operated upon at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi due to his problem of Hernia. At that time the respondent and her parents did not bother about the condition of the minor. It has also been alleged that though his father received a sum of Rs.39,00,000/-, 11 years back but his father paid taxes and spent a lot of amount on the extension and renovation of the house no. 212-R, Model Town, Panipat as per the wish of his daughter in law. He also purchased a car in the year 1992. Thereafter he also distributed some amount to his daughters and had discharged his liabilities. The business of the petitioner is not running in good condition and he suffered regular loses in the past. The letter received from Indian Bank shows that the concern of the petitioner was closed in the month of October, 2000. It has been alleged that the respondent left his company when she came to know that her husband had suffered losses in the business once again in the year 1999-2000. Other allegations as raised in the petition have been denied. Besides, legal pleas regarding maintainability of the petition have been taken.