Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : January 15, 2014 MRS.Neelam Saini ...Petitioner Versus Dinkar Saini ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL Present : Mr.O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.S.Mander, Advocate for the petitioner.
*** M.JEYAPAUL, J.
CRM No.46239 of 2011 Exemption to file the certified copies of the judgment passed by the court below is granted.
The application is allowed.
CRM No.46240 of 2011 There is a delay of 140 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.
Heard the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant.
Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 (O&M) 2 It has been convincingly submitted that the paper book was kept in some other brief by the clerk of the counsel and as a result of which the Revision petition could not be filed in time.
The aforesaid reason is found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the delay of 140 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned and the application is allowed.
CRM No.41243 of 2013 Exemption is granted from filing the typed-written copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 and P-7.
Permission also is granted to place on the original photo copies of those documents.
The application is allowed.
CRM No.31730 of 2013 The petition is filed praying permission to take additional ground by way of amendment to the grounds of Revision Petition filed before this court.
Heard the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant.
The petitioner has taken up a stand before the trial court that she has been residing at her parents house since the year 2008.
She had never averred in the petition filed before the trial court that the petitioner and her children were physically turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent in the year 2008.
Therefore, the amendment sought to be introduced in the Revision Petition to the effect that the petitioner and her children were physically turned out of her matrimonial home by the respondent by the year 2008 quite Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 (O&M) 3 against the original stand taken by her in the trial court cannot be allowed to be introduced in the Revision for the fiRs.time.
Therefore, the petition praying to take additional ground by way of amendment to the grounds of Revision stands dismissed.
CRM No.41304 of 2013.
The application is filed praying to stay the dispossession of the petitioner from House No.2, Gali No.20, Krishna Colony, Sehatpur Extension, Faridabad.
Heard the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant.
He would vehemently contend that the petitioner and her children have been residing in the said house and, therefore, dispossession in the interest of justice is warranted.
Referring to the original stand taken by the Revision petitioner in the petition filed before the trial court, I find that she has categorically stated that she had been residing at her parents house ever since the year 2008.
Nothing has been averred that she had been residing in the aforesaid house.
Therefore, the above application has been filed without any basis.
Therefore, the application stands dismissed.
Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 1.
The petitioner filed an application under the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying for shared residence at her matrimonial home.
She had also prayed for maintenance.
Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 (O&M) 4 2.
The trial court as well the Appellate Court having found that the petitioner had taken a specific stand that she had been residing at her parents house since the year 2008.
She had not resided in any portion of the matrimonial house after she left the matrimonial house in 2008 chose to decline the prayer for shared accommodation in the matrimonial home.
Considering the evidence available, both the courts below granted maintenance of `2000/- per month considering the fact that the respondent was earning only `6000/- to `7000/- per month.
3.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner being the wife of the respondent is entitled to shared accommodation in the matrimonial home.
4.
I find that there is no merit in the submission, inasmuch as it is the concrete stand of the petitioner that she has been residing at her parents house right from the year 2008.
She had also not set up a plea that she and her children were thrown away from the matrimonial home by the husband in the year 2008.
Now at the Revisional stage the petitioner has sought to materially shift the original stand taken by her in the petition before the trial court.
Such a contradictory stand which goes to the route of the case cannot be permitted to be taken by the petitioner.
As the petitioner has not established that she has been residing in the matrimonial home and the ration card filed by her does not reflect the ground relating inasmuch as she had admitted that she had been residing at her Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.1960 of 2011 (O&M) 5 parents house right from the year 2008, the petitioner is not entitled to shared accommodation in the matrimonial home.
5.
In my considered view, the courts below have rightly concluded that the petitioner is entitled to receive a sum of `2000/- as maintenance, as respondent was earning only a sum of `6000/- to `7000/- per month.
6.
I do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition.
Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
(M.
JEYAPAUL) JUDGE January 15, 2014 p.singh Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document