Sharanjit Kaur v. Karamjit Singh

CRR(F) 1055/2023 2023:PHHC:094280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR(F) 1055/2023 Date of decision: 25.07.2023.

Sharanjit Kaur ..................Petitioner Vs.

Karamjit Singh ..................Respondent

CORAM

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Prayer in this revision petition under Section 397/399 Cr.PC is for setting aside the order dated 27.4.2023 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 125 Cr.PC has been dismissed.

It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 16.1.2004. Out of this wedlock two sons were born on 13.2.2005 and 11.7.2006. It is submitted that vide order dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure P-4) ld. Family Court had granted interim maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per month, however, vide impugned order her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC has been dismissed. Ld. Counsel submits that the petitioner had placed on record the Income Tax Return of the respondent-husband for the Assessment Year 2021-22 (Annexure P-5) from which it is evident that respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It is submitted that however, the Family Court has RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.07.27 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRR(F) 1055/2023 2023:PHHC:094280 erroneously ignored this fact. It is further submitted that respondent periodically travels abroad, however, nothing has been paid to the petitioner by way of maintenance, and that the respondent is legally bound to pay and maintain the petitioner.

Heard ld. counsel for the petitioner.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner in her statement Ex.RW-4 suffered in a case filed by her against the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, has admitted that she was working as an Assistant in a Finance Company and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Admittedly too, the factum of her job was not disclosed by the petitioner in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC. Clearly therefore, the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Family Court. Ld. counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny these facts. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 25.07.2023.

(Nidhi Gupta) Joshi Judge RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.07.27 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document