AMIT HASIJA Vs. SHIKHA HASIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision by disgruntled husband petitioner Amit Hasija whereby he has sought to challenge judgment dtd. 30/11/2017 of the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Family Court Gurugram. The then petitioner wife Shikha Hasija and her minor son Kunsh had filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent and the Court vide impugned findings allowed the same directing the respondent husband to pay a sum of Rs.7,500.00 per month to each of the two petitioners from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 24/12/2014. The same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) Upon hearing Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Akshay Jindal, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and on perusal of the records. It is a revision petition by the husband under the provisions of Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. whereby the Court has a very limited scope and is to adjudge as to the very legality and propriety of an order or a finding. During the course of submissions of the two sides, it is not disputed inter-se that marriage between the two took place on 27/1/2012, out of which a son was born on 25/1/2013. It is the claim of the wife that there has been a matrimonial dispute and it has become unsafe for her and her child to live in the matrimonial home and carry on with her obligations and was forced to file a criminal complaint before the Women Cell and on account of this matrimonial dispute, written compromise was effected on 6/6/2014 whereby the husband and his father had undertaken to deposit Rs.15,000.00 per month by 5th of every English calendar month in the account of the wife and the son and to return the entire Stridhan, but the same was never given effect to leading to the filing of present proceedings. It is claim of the wife that she does not have any source of earnings and is totally dependent on the husband who has refused to maintain them. It is alleged by the wife that the husband is running a business of sale and supply of optical contact lenses by way of firm Binni Opticals in HUDA Market, Gurgaon and earning Rs.2.00 lacs per month besides having various properties from where they have monthly rental income of Rs.45,000.00. However, the husband in his stand has denied that any Stridhan was ever given or taken and it was a simple marriage and rather has tried to turn the tables upon the family of the wife, submitting that they were greedy persons and had demanded Rs.5.00 lacs to enable them to purchase a flat and alleged that the wife had on her own abandoned her matrimonial home along with the child. The husband claims that he is working in a small Industrial Unit at Jamnagar, Ahmadabad and does not have any business or income as claimed by the wife. It was thereafter, the impugned findings were recorded.

(3.) During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to allay the claim that he was running a business or had income as claimed by the wife and has sought to place reliance on employment/earning certificate (Ex.R1 to Ex.R14) and which is sought to be controverted with much vehemence by learned counsel for the respondents who has argued that even the Court below has discarded these documents to be for a motivated cause.