Meenakashi Goel vs Gaurav Goel

Anoop Chitkara, J

Dis-satisfied with the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.5000/- per month awarded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta

Sahib, the petitioner-wife challenged the order before the learned Appellate Court and failing there, has come up before this Court under Section 482,

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.PC for seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.45,000/-. Learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Paonta Sahib considered such petition and in the order dated 15.9.2015 observed that the relationship between the parties was not in

dispute as legally wedded husband and wife. It has also been mentioned in the said order that the petitioner-wife is also a qualified person with holding

a degree of M.B.A.

The respondent-husband, Gaurav Goel filed an affidavit that he is unemployed these days, although he had worked in Merchant Navy till 21.9.2013.

After considering the financial status of the parties, learned Trial Court directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.5000/-

per month to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition before Sessions Court, Nahan for its

enhancement.

Vide judgment dated 12.10.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (campt at Paonta Sahib) did not find merits in the

Revision Petition and dismissed the same. While dismissing the Revision Petition, the learned Appellate Court considered that even it is presumed that

the respondent is employed and working as an Engineer, then his income is likely to be somewhere around Rs.25,000/-to Rs.30,000/- and given this,

the maintenance was justified.

Dis-satisfied with the monthly maintenance allowance granted by the learned Courts below, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that the respondent-husband, is still employed and is drawing very good

salary. He has handed over the printouts showing that Gaurav Goel was granted permission and such permission is reflected in the webpage of the

Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai.

However, Mr. Aman Sood, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has instructions to state that Gaurav Goel, respondent could not

continue his job in Merchant Navy because of the FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34, IPC at the instance of the petitioner and due to

which, he could not travel abroad. Mr. Sood further states that there are no legal grounds to enhance the maintenance.

It is undisputed that the petitioner is also professionally qualified person holding a degree of M.B.A. The amount of maintenance is neither a lottery

nor a windfall gain for the other person. As the nomenclature says that it is the maintenance and certainly would exclude anything beyond

maintenance.

So far as documents placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it shall be open for the petitioner to place it on

record under Section 127, Cr.PC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, if she decides to initiate because the same need to be proved. The said

documents are the printouts only and need to be proved and at least admission or denial by the respondent-husband is necessary as statement in the

Court has been made by him through his counsel that he is unemployed and there is no reason to take these documents on their face value.

Thus, the impugned order dated 15.9.2015 passed by the learned JMFC, in Criminal Petition No.351/4 of 2012 and the order dated 12.10.2017

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (Camp at Paonta Sahib) in Criminal Revision Petition No.37-N/10 of 2015

are set aside.

Given above, the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for hearing it afresh keeping in view the printouts of the documents brought to

the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which shall be subject to proof. It shall also be open for the parties to bring on record

the further evidence about the proof of each other’s income and financial status. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter accordingly after

affording an opportunity to the parties for taking their response on the documents handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioner today in the

Court. It is clarified that this Court is not expressing any opinion about the authenticity of these documents.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court along with the record forthwith.