MUNISH KUMAR Vs. EKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dtd. 16/8/2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar in complaint bearing No. COMA-10-2014, titled as Ekta vs. Munish Kumar and others, filed under Ss. 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act'), whereby the petitioner No.1-husband was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.12,000.00 per month to the respondent-wife and was also directed to provide her residential accommodation or in lieu thereof to pay an amount of Rs.3,000.00 per month as rent. He was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000.00 as compensation to her in addition to Rs.5,000.00 to be paid to her as litigation expenses. The petitioners have also assailed the judgment dtd. 14/9/2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the trial Court had been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as alleged in the complaint and as relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present revision are that the marriage of respondent Ekta was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 Munish Kumar on 4/12/2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It was the second marriage of both of them. After marriage, they started residing as husband and wife and cohabited with each other. One male child was born on 18/6/2013 out of the wedlock. The petitioner-husband was living in a joint family and was working in some college near Muktsar Sahib. In the marriage, the parents of the respondent-wife had given sufficient dowry including a car make Maruti Suzuki Alto K10, which was registered in her name. However, the petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they used to taunt the respondent for not bringing sufficient dowry. After two months of the marriage, the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs from the respondent and when their demand was not fulfilled, they started subjecting the respondent to cruelty. The respondent even came to know that his husband was having extra marital affair with his real sister-in-law (Bhabhi). Parents of the respondent tried to prevail good sense upon the petitioner-husband but he did mend his ways. On 7/8/2013, the respondent caught him with petitioner No. 4 Kiran Jindal in an objectionable condition. She brought the matter to the notice of her mother-in-law but petitioners Munish Kumar, Kiran Jindal (Jethani) and Raj Singla extended beatings to her. She was ousted from the matrimonial house. Before her marriage, the respondent was working as a lecturer in Rayat and Bahra College, Mohali. Even at the time of birth of child, all the expenditure was borne by the parents of the respondent. The respondent had given some other instances when she was maltreated by the petitioner-husband and some demands were made by him. The petitioner-husband used to demand money from the respondent on one pretext or the other. The father of the respondent gave an amount of Rs.20,000.00 to petitioner No. 1 in June, 2012 and another amount of Rs.25,000.00 in July, 2013. While alleging that the petitioners have subjected her to cruelty and physical violence and petitioner No. 1 was earning Rs.45,000.00 per month as salary, she claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs.40,000.00 per month, besides laying claim to protection order, residence order, monetary relief and compensation order.

(3.) In order to prove her case, the respondent examined herself as CW1 and tendered her duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A reiterating the contents of the complaint. In her cross-examination, apart from admitting certain other facts, she admitted that she had got registered an FIR against all the petitioners, in which, they had been acquitted and an appeal was pending against the same. She also admitted that she was earning Rs.35,000.00 per month and had also received an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 as compensation amount from her earlier marriage. She specifically stated that dispute with petitioner-husband was because of the fact that he was having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. Thereafter, she examined Jagtar Singh, Senior Assistant, Maharaja Ranjit Singh University, Bathinda as CW2, who proved that petitioner No. 1 was working as Assistant Professor in their institute. He also proved the salary slip of petitioner No. 1 for the month of October, 2018, which was exhibited as Ex. CW2/A and the same was duly signed by the competent authority. In cross-examination, he admitted that at that there was no register maintained in the institute regarding salary of the employees as the registers were being maintained before 1/1/2017. Thereafter, the respondent tendered into evidence certified copy of grounds of appeal as Ex. PX and closed her evidence.