Kavita Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The fact which emerges and are admitted by the parties are that in this present revision (1) the factum of marriage having solemnized between the revisionist and respondent no. 2 on 04.12.2011 as per the Hindu rights and rituals is not denied, (2) it is also not in controversy that after the marriage both the revisionist and respondent no. 2 lived their life as husband and wife and they have discharged matrimonial obligations. At a later stage some matrimonial discord germinated between the two resulting into initiation of the proceedings for claim of maintenance at the behest of the revisionist by filing a application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by filing the same on 08.07.2015 on the ground that though she is qualified having done her post-graduation in history, but at the time when the family feud has arisen she was not profitably engaged anywhere and she was not earning and was entirely dependant on the earning of her husband. The pleading to the said effect was raised in paragraph 11 of the said application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

In support of her contention with regards to quantifying the appropriate maintenance to be awarded to her she has taken a specific plea that the respondent no. 2 is working on the post of manager in Reliance Life Insurance Company and the income according to the wife, which accruing to him is about Rs. 90,000/- per month and, hence, she has claimed for a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month to be paid to her. On being noticed in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. registered as Case No. 173 of 2015 'Smt. Kavita Pant vs. Shri Trilochan Pant' the respondent had put in appearance and in defense he has submitted his response to the pleading of paragraph 11 and 13 of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In paragraph 6 wherein he has given an absolutely vague reply pertaining to the income accruing to the wife and she being unemployed, and the fact pertaining to that the respondent no. 2 was having an earning of Rs. 90,000/- remained unreplied as there was no specific denial was made by the respondent husband.

However, the said pleading was sought to be qualified in the additional plea, which has been made by respondent no. 2 in his application/objection as filed before the Court below. In the objection he has come up with a case that the revisionist is not entitled for any maintenance because on account of the fact that she being a highly qualified lady, she is profitably engaged in a "private company", as it has been pleaded in paragraph 14 of the objection filed by the husband respondent.

This Court is of a considered view that once the husband takes a plea in defense to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that wife is employed then the burden of proof shifts on him. That means once there is an averment made by husband that wife is profitably engaged in a private company then the responsibilities is casted upon the respondent, who is taking in defense to deny the maintenance on account of wife being profitably engaged by placing the document on record to show that she is engaged in a private company, for example, as such with regard to the name of the company, the post on which she is appointed, or the salary which she is being drawn by her all this has to be pleaded and proved on record before the Court below.

Rather to the contrary, in the objection preferred by the husband he had in paragraph 8 has taken altogether a somersaulted plea it has been taken that since the revisionist wife is B.Sc., B.Ed, and a post graduate she is working as a, "teacher", in an educational institution. What is surprising is that yet again the said plea, which has been taken to deny the maintenance on the pretext that the wife is employed as a teacher and is having an earning is yet again a fact, which has been vaguely denied without referring the institution in which she is employed, and without making any pleading to the effect as to what is the salary drawn by her, and other aspects pertaining to her being engaged as a teacher in an institution was never brought by him on record.

In response to the pleading raised under Section 125 application, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the finding, which has been recorded in the impugned order by the Court below particularly, a reference is made to the contents and the finding, which has been recorded in paragraph 13 of the impugned order dated 06.03.2018, which has been partially challenged by the revisionist. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:

"13. जहां तक प्रार्थिनी की आय का प्रश्न है, प्रार्थिनी ने स्वंय अपने प्रार्थनापत्र के पैरा सं. 10 में यह स्वीकार किया है कि परिवादी एक निजी कम्पनी में एक अल्प वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी थी जिससे वह किसी तरह अपना जीवन यापन कर रही थी लेकिन विपक्षी व उसके परिवार के सदस्यों द्वारा किये गये कृत्यों के कारण प्रार्थिनी लगातार अत्यधिक मानसिक दबाव में रहने लगी जिससे उसका स्वास्थ्य आये दिन खराब रहने लगा। फलस्वरूप दिनांक 20.5.2015 से प्रार्थिनी की नौकरी छूट गयी है। प्रार्थिनी श्रीमती कविता पंत ने अपने प्रार्थनापत्र में किये गये कथनों के समर्थन में अपना साक्ष्य शपथपत्र कागज सं. 49क पी0डब्लू-1 के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया गया, जिसमें उसके द्वारा सशपथ कथन किया गया है कि उसकी नौकरी दिनांक 20.5.2015 को छूट गयी थी। प्रार्थिनी श्रीमती कविता पंत पी.डब्लू-1 द्वारा अपनी जिरह में स्वीकार किया गया है कि शादी के पहले से मैक्स लाईफ इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी में नौकरी करती थी। वह कम्पनी में एजेन्सी कोडीनेटर के रूप में कार्य करती थी। रूद्रपुर में वह 2015 तक कार्यरत थी। क्योंकि रूद्रपुर का आफिस बन्द हो गया था, इसलिए उसने नौकरी छोड़ दी थी। रूद्रपुर कम्पनी का आफिस छोड़ने के बाद उसने पेंडेन्सी निपटाने के लिए हल्द्वानी कार्यालय में कार्य किया था। कम्पनी छोड़ते वक्त उसका पद नाम सर्विस डिलीवरी एक्सक्यूटिव था। उस वक्त उसका वेतन 18,000/- रूपये प्रतिमाह था। अपनी जिरह में अपनी शैक्षिक योग्यता के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थिनी ने कथन किया है कि उसकी शैक्षिक योग्यता बी.एस.सी. बी.एड. है। उसने बी.एस.सी. बायोलॉजी से किया था।

विपक्षी त्रिलोचन पंत ने भी प्रार्थिनी की नौकरी व आय के सम्बन्ध में साक्षी कृष्ण चन्द्र जोशी, स्टेट मैनेजर आर.ए.एन. पब्लिक स्कूल भूरारानी रूद्रपुर को डी.डब्लू-2 को परीक्षित करवाया है। इस साक्षी ने साक्ष्य रूद्रपुर में कार्यरत है। वह आज अपने साथ कविता भट्ट (प्रार्थिनी) पुत्री गोपालदत्त भट्ट निवासी मल्ली बमौरी की पत्रावली लाया है। कविता भट्ट ने उनके दिनांक 10.9.2015 को एन.टी.टी. टीचर के रूप में वेतनमान 6000-300-9000 में नियुक्त किया गया। इसके अलावा 8 प्रतिशत मंहगाई भत्ता व अन्य 1200/- रूपये देय था तथा स्कूल नियमावली के अन्दर जो भत्ते देय थे उन्हें भी कविता भट्ट को मिलते थे। नियुक्ति पत्र को इस गवाह ने नियुक्ति पत्र कागत सं. 58ख को प्रदर्श क-1 के रूप में साबित किया है। इस गवाह ने जिरह में यह कथन किया है कि 1 जनवरी, 2017 से कविता भट्ट का वेतन बढ़ा है, जिसकी छाया प्रति 59ख प्रस्तुत की गयी है, इस पर प्रदर्श क-2 डाला गया। कागज सं. 59ख में प्रार्थिनी कविता का वेतन 16200/- रूपये प्रतिमाह दर्शाया गया है। डीडब्लू-2 ने अपनी जिरह में कथन किया है कि कविता भट्ट को वेतन कैश में दिया जाता था जिसके बाउचर छाया प्रति 60ख/1 लगायत 60ख/2 है। दिनांक 12.8.2016 को कविता द्वारा एक बार नौकरी छोड़ने के बाद पुनः नौकरी ज्वाइन की गई है। इस गवाह ने प्रार्थिनी कविता भट्ट की शिनाख्त न्यायालय के समक्ष की है। इस साक्षी ने इन कथनों का कि प्रार्थिनी उक्त स्कूल में आज भी कार्यरत है, को सुझाव द्वारा इंकार नहीं किया गया है। इस साक्षी ने जिरह में यह कथन किया है कि स्कूल में उसका कार्य बिल्डिंग की रखवाली एवं स्टाफ का काम देखना है। इस गवाह ने कथन किया है कि मैनेजमेंट व स्कूल प्रशासन व टीचर्स के कार्यकलाप में उसका कोई हस्तक्षेप नहीं होता है। गवाह ने कथन किया है कि उसका शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति के पदच्युति का कोई अधिकार नहीं है। परन्तु इस गवाह ने प्रार्थिनी के उक्त आर.एन.ए. पब्लिक स्कूल में दस्तावेज कागज सं. 64ख प्रस्तुत किया गया है। प्रार्थिनी ने इस गवाह के आर.ए. एन. पब्लिक स्कूल में कार्य करने के सम्बन्ध में कोई आपत्ति नहीं की है। बल्कि स्वंय प्रार्थिनी ने अपने प्रार्थनापत्र में यह कथन किया है कि उसकी नौकरी दिनांक 20.5.2015 को छूट गयी थी। उसके उपरांत डी. डब्लू-2 द्वारा यह भी साबित है कि प्रार्थिनी ने उनके स्कूल में दिनांक 10.9.2015 को ज्वाइन किया था। प्रार्थिनी कविता पंत ने अपना साक्ष्य शपथपत्र दिनांक 9.10.2017 को प्रस्तुत किया है जिसमें उसने अपने प्रार्थनापत्र के कथनों को दोहराते हुए यह कथन किया है कि दिनांक 20.5.2015 को उसकी नौकरी छूट गयी है। परन्तु साक्षी कृष्णचन्द जोशी डी.डब्लू-2 ने यह साबित किया है कि प्रार्थिनी इस गवाही के दौरान भी उक्त आर.ए.एनपब्लिक स्कूल में नौकरी करती है। अतः पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से यह साबित होता है कि प्रार्थिनी एक शिक्षित महिला है और उसकी मैक्स लाईफ इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी में नौकरी से मुब. 18,000/- रूपये प्रतिमाह प्राप्त करने की स्वीकारोक्ति है। उसके उपरांत भी उसके द्वारा स्कूल में अध्यापन कार्य से 16,200/- रूपये प्रतिमाह वेतन प्राप्ति को भी विपक्षी द्वारा साबित किया गया है।"

What is surprising is that in order to substantiate his case the respondent had submitted that the revisionist is engaged as a teacher in an institution called as RAN Public School, Bhurarani, Rudrapur, and the manager of the said institution Mr. Krishan Chand Joshi was produced as DW2, who had orally submitted that she is engaged as a teacher in the said institution and is drawing a salary of about Rs. 9,000/-, which was later on increased to Rs. 16,200/-, but what is surprising to be observed is that he has made a statement that the salary which is being paid to the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 16,200/- is paid by cash for which he has produced the vouchers paper no. 60kha/1 and 60kha/2.

Apart from the said evidence on recording of the statement of DW2, there is no other material or documentary evidence, which has been placed on record by the respondent no. 2 to show that the revisionist was engaged in the public school run and managed by DW2, with regards to the remittance of the salary he has submitted, in the cross-examination that she has been paid with the salary by way of cash, which in the present circumstances any system of accounting cannot be accepted for the reason that if it is an educational institution which obviously requires a recommendation from the competent educational authorities and in such an eventuality, they are required to maintain the books of accounts, which is to be duly audited to show the income and expenses, which has been incurred by the institution. It cannot be perceived that a teacher, who is appointed to function in the said capacity, she would be paid salary by way of cash, which may go unaccounted. In these circumstances, the statement recorded by DW2 regarding the engagement of the revisionist as a teacher in his institution cannot be accepted in the absence of there being any document of accounting of her salary, appointment, registers etc. being placed on record. No reliance can be placed on the document, which has been produced by the DW2, which are the vouchers paper no. 60kha and 60kha 2 showing the remittance of the salary for the reason that it is not the case of the respondent that the said statement of salary made to the revisionist was ever accounted for or has been reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the institution. Hence, the oral testimony of DW2 cannot be solely taken as to be basis to show the profitable engagement of the revisionist.

Although the application for the grant of maintenance has been partially allowed by the Family Court, Nainital, by its order dated 06.03.2018 by making the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per month, to commensurate the maintenance granted by the Family Court has had to be calculated in relation to the amount accruing as an income to the respondent no. 2, who admittedly is working as a manager in Reliance Life Insurance Company and has to maintain a particular standard of living, hence, she would be entitled to have a satisfactory and sufficient maintenance in order to maintain the compatibility of her status of living in parlance and which should be in consonance to the status of the husband, which he used to enjoy as a consequence of his engagement as a manger of the Reliance Life Insurance Company.

In such a circumstances, the quantification of maintenance as made by the Family Court considering an over all prospective is increased from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month and it is directed that respondent no. 2 would ensure its remittance by 10th of each month. However, the payment of the increased maintenance would from the date of filing of the application and from today's order, as far as the arrears are concerned that would be payable only at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per month, which has been determined by the impugned order dated 06.03.2018.

Subject to the above observation, the revision partially succeeds. The amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs. 14,000/-to Rs. 20,000/- made payable to respondent no. 2 from today.

However, there would be no order as to cost.