Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Revision No.F-110 of 2014 ....Date of decision:30.5.2014 Yudhishter Bhutani ...Petitioner v.
Shalini Bhutani and others ...Respondents ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner....Inderjit Singh, J.
Yudhishter Bhutani-revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C.against Shalini Bhutani, Garvit Bhutani and Tanishq Bhutani challenging the judgment dated 6.5.2014 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C.for grant of maintenance.
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner married respondent No.1 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies at Gurgaon in the year 1998.
Out of the wedlock, two sons, namely, Garvit Bhutani and Tanishq Bhutani (respondents No.2 and 3) were born in the year 1999 and 2002 respectively.
As the relations between the petitioner and respondent No.1 became strained, they started living separately from November 2011.
It is stated here that the respondents are staying in the matrimonial home, whereas the petitioner was staying in the same house on another floor Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Revision No.F-110 of 2014 [2].along with his brother.
However, later on he shifted and is now staying alone.
It is stated that respondent No.1 used to leave the house and started living in Guest Houses in Gurgaon without caring about her children.
The petitioner even bought a separate house after taking loan from the bank to live with his wife and children, but respondent No.1 never wanted to stay with him.
The respondents filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.for grant of maintenance on 19.10.2012.
In the said petition, respondent No.1 stated that the petitioner is the owner of a factory and has more than one house.
They further stated that the petitioner is running an industrial unit and has employed over 25 workmen and is earning over `2 Lacs per month.
The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 14.8.2013 that respondent No.1 behind the back of the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with one Manish and due to this, their relations became strained.
Even FIR for the offences under Section 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC was got registered by Smt.
Meenu wife of Manish.
It is also stated that during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court, the matter was sent to Mediation and conciliation Centre, where the petitioner and respondents agreed to settle their dispute and were directed to take divorce by way of mutual consent.
The petitioner further agreed to pay a sum of `10 Lacs along with jewellery of respondent No.1 lying in the bank locker as permanent alimony.
Respondent No.1 agreed to send the children in the custody of the petitioner.
It is also stated that respondent No.1 is running a beauty parlour and earning quite well.
It is Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Revision No.F-110 of 2014 [3].also stated in the petition that vide impugned judgment, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of `6,500/- to each of the respondents, which comes up to be `19,500/- per month.
This judgment has been passed without application of mind and without considering the material evidence brought on record by the petitioner.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that firstly, it is not the petitioner, who threw away the respondents.
Rather, the respondents are staying in the matrimonial house and the petitioner is living separately.
It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the talk of compromise, approximately an amount of `1.5 Lacs has already been paid to respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No.1 is earning sufficient income and the amount granted to the respondents is excessive and respondent No.1 is not entitled to maintenance.
He also contended that the income of the petitioner as per the Income-tax return also comes to average of less than `25,000/- per month.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the record, I find that this is a revision petition and in the revision petition, the petitioner is only to show the illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court.
In the revision petition, this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like a Court of appeal.
It is in the order that the present petitioner admitted before the Family Court that he was Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Revision No.F-110 of 2014 [4].owner of a factory, but it was not generating the kind of income as mentioned in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.When this Court put this specific query regarding his income, then he failed to disclose the exact income that he had and did not place on record his Income-tax return etc.or any other document to show his bona fide and the exact amount that he was earning.
The Court has also discussed that in fact he did not even orally disclose any amount that he was earning and the Court has inferred that the respondent (petitioner herein) is deliberately not disclosing his exact income to avoid making payment of maintenance to the petitioners (respondents herein) and the Court held that there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the respondents completely on this issue.
Hence, the filing of the Income-tax return before this Court is of no consequence.
This Court is to consider the evidence which is produced by the present petitioner before the family Court.
These findings by the Family Court cannot be held as against the evidence on record.
Again the Family Court has held that the present respondents have stated that they have been abandoned and deserted by the present petitioner.
At the time of arguments and it is also mentioned in the petition that it is admitted fact that the present petitioner left the matrimonial house, then how it can be held that the present respondents had deserted the present petitioner.
As regards the income earned by respondent No.1, the present petitioner before the family Court has placed on record two Income-tax returns Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3, but this fact has been explained by respondent No.1 that these returns are manipulated as during the subsistence of their Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Revision No.F-110 of 2014 [5].marriage the present petitioner has obtained her signatures on various documents and the present petitioner used her signatures for relaxation in taxation matters and she herself never had any income which requires tax to be paid.
She has a small beauty parlour, which does not generate sufficient income to make it taxable.
From the evidence on record, the Family Court reached to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that present respondent No.1 has conducted herself in any manner which would justify the present petitioner living away from her or failing to maintain her or their two children.
A perusal of the judgment shows that in no way the amount granted by the family Court can be held as excessive.
As regards the amount of about `1.5 Lacs given to the present respondent No.1 during the settlement proceedings, as mentioned in the petition, this argument has not been raised before the Family Court.
A perusal of the compromise, which is Annexure-P.6, also shows that no such fact has been mentioned in the compromise regarding payment of `1.5 Lacs during the settlement proceedings.
The judgment passed by the learned Family Court is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld.
Finding no merit in the criminal revision, the same is dismissed.
May 30, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.05 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh