Ashwani Kumar vs Dasi Alias Uma Devi

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 25.03.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, H.P., in Case No.13 of 2023, titled Dasi @ Uma Devi Versus Ashwani Kumar, in terms whereof, the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of monthly maintenance, was allowed by the learned Court below by ordering the grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, as from the date of the filing of the petition.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is perverse on three counts. He submitted that in light of the fact that there was no dispute that the respondent was legally married before she entered into a relationship with the present petitioner and that there was no formal divorce between her and the first husband, the grant of maintenance in favour of the respondent by the learned Court below was totally unsustainable. He further submitted that, despite the fact that the petitioner time and again had conveyed to her and still was willing to reside with her, the respondent was not willing to reside with him for the reason that she was again living in a live-in relationship with one Ashok Kumar, which was duly proved on record, which fact was ignored by the learned Court below. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that in light of the fact that it was not proved before the learned Court below that the respondent was forced to leave the house of the present petitioner on account of his act, be it mental or physical abuse, the voluntarily desertion of the respondent could not be given premium by granting her maintenance and this aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the learned Court below. On these counts, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the parties had a relationship for more than 21 years, which is not in dispute. Due to this, the petitioner has no locus to submit before this Court that he is not bound to maintain the respondent on the alleged ground that there was no formal divorce between the respondent and her first husband. He further submitted that record, demonstrated that the respondent was duly mentioned as the wife of the petitioner in the Pariwar Register i.e., Ext. PW-1/B and, therefore, this contention of the petitioner was worth rejection. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent was forcibly thrown out of the house by the petitioner after physically abusing her. There was no occasion for the respondent, otherwise, to have left the house of the petitioner after residing with him for more than 21 years. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the bald allegation that the respondent was having a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar was not substantiated before the learned Court below, as was observed by the said Court also. He argued that, as the respondent was a destitute lady, she had no option, but to work in the house of Ashok Kumar. Simply because she was working as a maid in the house of Ashok Kumar, this did not mean that she was having a live-in relationship with him. He submitted that the allegations levelled against the present respondent itself are demonstrative of the attitude of the present petitioner towards her. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he is willing to take back the respondent is not worth any credence, as this stand is being taken by him only to evade the order of maintenance. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the impugned order, we are of the considered view that the impugned order calls for no interference.

The order has been assailed before us on three grounds by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which have been mentioned hereinabove.

The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that there was no formal divorce between the respondent and her first husband. However, this issue has been taken care of by the learned Court below Para 18 onwards of the order, findings have been returned in this regard in favour of the wife by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which stand referred therein.

Besides this, the learned Court below has also taken note of the evidence, which was produced on record, including Ext. PW-1/B, which is the copy of Pariwar Register of the family of the present petitioner, i.e., the husband, in which, the respondent is mentioned as the wife of Ashwani Kumar. On these bases, it was held by the learned Court below that the respondent herein was kept as a wife by the respondent and, therefore, was entitled for maintenance from him.

Not only this, a perusal of Para 32 of the order passed by the learned Court below demonstrates that in his cross-examination, the factum of the respondent being the wife of the present petitioner was never disputed by him nor did he dispute the entry in the Pariwar Register.

In light of the fact that it could not be proved before us that the findings returned in this regard by the learned Court below were perverse and not borne out from the record, we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from infirmity on the ground that the first marriage of the respondent did not end by a formal divorce.

The other issues raised by the learned Senior Counsel are that the impugned order is bad, as the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the wife had willfully left the house and that she was having a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar.

According to us, as it was the stand of the present petitioner before the learned Court below that the wife had voluntarily left the house and that she was having a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar, the onus was upon the petitioner to prove these facts.

It is evident from the order passed by the learned Court below that in the month of December 2022, the wife was physically assaulted by the present petitioner, who threatened to do away with her life and forced the wife to leave the house. Besides this, the husband also refused to provide financial support to her and thereafter, she started residing in her parental house since January 2023.

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the wife voluntarily left the house was not substantiated by the husband by leading any cogent evidence in this regard before the learned Court below.

Besides this, the allegation which in fact is a serious allegation that the present respondent was in a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar was also not proved by him by leading any cogent evidence. His bald assertion in this regard cannot be treated as a proof of the allegation.

We find from the impugned order that the agreement Ext. RW-1/A was produced on record by the husband himself, in terms whereof, the wife was only kept as a servant by Ashok Kumar and not as his partner, as was being claimed by the husband. It could not be demonstrated before us that the findings returned by the learned Court below on the basis of Ext. RW-1/A were perverse and contrary to the contents of Ext. RW-1/A.

Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the respondent left the house voluntarily or that she was having a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar stood rejected.

As far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was still willing to bring the respondent back is concerned, we concur with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that this appears to be more of a lip service just to avoid the maintenance order that has been passed against the petitioner by the learned Court below.

We find that as the respondent had resided with the petitioner for 21 years in a relationship, until and unless it was proved before the learned Court below by the petitioner that the respondent willfully deserted him, the stand of the respondent that she was physically assaulted by the petitioner and forced to leave his house had be to accepted.

Accordingly, in light of the above discussions, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.