SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

(2018-19)

INTERNSHIP CASES

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Rahul Soni Mansi Arora

Assistant Professor, B.A.LL.B. V Year

School of Legal Studies, ROLL NO. 513

Mody University 140484

CASE NO. 1

1. Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Harvinder Singh and daughter of late Shri Kashmir Singh
resident of Near Namdhari Gurudawara Suratgadhia Bazar, Sirsa.
2. Taranpreet Kaur, aged two years daughter of Harvinder through mother and natural
guardian Kanwaljit Kaur.

....Petitioner

Versus

Harvinder Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Gali Amar Singh Furniture Wali,
Near I.T.I. College Kanuan Road, Near Chungi, Batala (Punjab).

....Respondent

Court: Family Court, Sirsa

Presiding Officer: Mr. Jasbir Singh Kundu, Principal Judge

CNR No.HRSI01-003200-2019

CIS No. MNT-125/498-2019

Date of Institution: 06.01.2015/02.01.2019

Date of Decision: 23.03.2019

Matter: Petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance

Present: Sh. Ravinder Monga Advocate for petitioner

Respondent already exparte vide order dated 18.12.2018.

The petitioners had filed this petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against respondent seeking maintenance
allowance of 20,000/- per month and ₹ 21,000/- as litigation expenses.

FACTS:

 The marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent was solemnized on
11.01.2011. In the aforesaid marriage, brothers of the petitioner had spent Rs.7-8 lacs.

Page | 2
 Out of the aforesaid wedlock, petitioner no.2 Taranpreet Kaur took birth on
23.08.2012.
 Soon after the marriage the respondent and his family members subjected petitioner
no.1 to cruelty for want of more dowry including two lacs. Brothers of the petitioner
no.1 had shown their inability to pay the said amount, but the respondent and his
family members remained adamant on their illegal demands.
 When the petitioner no.1 was pregnant she became ill and the Doctor advised her for
rest and proper diet. The respondent got annoyed and stated that she had narrated false
story to the Doctor and he beaten her mercilessly. She got registered a criminal case
regarding demand of dowry and beating, in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, wherein a compromise was arrived between the parties on 31.07.2012
wherein the respondent assured that he would not harass and maltreat her for want of
dowry. Both the parties were directed to remain bound down by their statements made
in the court.
 After that the respondent and his family members behaved with the petitioner no.1
properly for some time but later on they again started harassing her and her daughter.
On 17.09.2014 when the respondent was out of station, family members of the
respondent started abusing her and they beaten her and bolted in a room. At about 10-
11 P.M., the respondent came in house and on the instigation of family members, he
beaten her and she along with her minor daughter was kept bolted in a room.
 The petitioner no.1 finding an opportunity informed her brothers and they took her
along with minor daughter with them. Since then, they have been residing with her
brothers. The petitioner no.1 has no source of income and they are dependent upon the
income of her brothers. On the other hand, the respondent is doing business of
sanitary and iron Grills and gates. He is also contractor of this work. He is also a chief
bureau for newspaper and television. He is earning 40-50 thousands per month from
the aforesaid pursuits.
 Petitioners have prayed for maintenance of 20,000/- per month and ₹ lump sum
amount of 21,000/- as litigation expenses.

Page | 3
REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT:

 Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement. In the written
statement he has admitted his marriage with the petitioner no.1 and birth of petitioner
no.2 from their wedlock.
 He submitted that the marriage of the parties has been dissolved vide judgment and
decree dated 29.08.2014 passed by the court of Sh.SK Garg, learned Addl.District
Judge, Amritsar but this fact has been concealed by the petitioner.
 The respondent has already performed second marriage in the month of May, 2015.
 He denied the allegations of demand of dowry and beating to the petitioner no.1 as
alleged by the petitioners in the petition.
 He denied his income as alleged by the petitioners. In fact he is working on daily
wages basis and his income is not more than 6000/- per month.
 He has prayed for dismissal of the said petition.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT AND DECISION:

 It is pertinent to mention here that application seeking interim maintenance filed by

petitioners was allowed vide order dated 24.08.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sirsa wherein respondent was directed to pay 3000/- per month to
petitioner no.1 and ₹2000/- per month to petitioner no.2 from the date of filing
application. Thereafter, case remained pending for making payment of interim
maintenance but the respondent did not make payment of interim maintenance till
11.04.2018 and on 11.04.2018 none has appeared on behalf of the respondent and he
was proceeded against exparte.
 Thereafter, when the case was fixed for ex parte evidence of the petitioner, on
18.12.2018 the respondent-applicant had filed an application seeking setting aside of
exparte order dated 11.04.2018.
 This court vide order dated 18.02.2019 directed the respondent to deposit ₹ 50,000/-
as outstanding interim maintenance has crossed the sum of ₹ 2 lacs failing which his
application will be deemed to be dismissed. He did not comply with the direction of
this court, hence vide order dated 01.03.2019, application seeking setting aside of
exparte proceedings against him was dismissed.
 In order to prove her case, petitioner no.1 Kanwaljit herself appeared in the witness
box as PW2 and examined her mother Bhupinder Kaur as PW1. Both these witnesses

Page | 4
 have tendered in evidence their respective affidavits. The petitioner no.1 has also
tendered documents which proved their marriage.
 The Presiding Officer heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the case file very carefully.
 It is worth while to mention here that prior to poceeding exparte, the respondent
appeared and filed his written statement. In his written statement he submitted that he
is not a contractor but a labourer and his income is 6000/- per month. However, he did
not bother to appear in the witness box in support of his plea.
 In case law titled Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.and another (Allahabad) 2014(12)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 2437 it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that:
“Having sufficient means- includes earning capacity also. When a man is healthy
and able bodied he must be taken to have the means to support his wife. A young
man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money reasonably to
maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a
position to earn to be able to maintain them according to the family standard.”
 From the evidence produced by the petitioners it stands established that petitioner
no.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner no.2 is the daughter of
petitioner no.1 and the respondent. As discussed above, the respondent appeared
and filed his written statement. In his written statement he admitted the petitioner
as his wife and petitioner no.2 as his daughter. In his written statement he
submitted that he is not a contractor but a labourer and his income is ₹6000/- per
month. However, he did not bother to appear in the witness box in support of his
plea. Later on, he was proceeded against exparte. Hence, filing of this petition is
well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that the
respondent has been earning Rs.40-50 thousand per month. Hence, keeping in view
the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, social status of the parties, high
prices of the domestic articles and conduct of the respondent, this petition in hand
is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay 3000/- per month to ₹
petitioner no.1 and 4000/- per month to petitioner no.2 as maintenance ₹ from the
date of filing petition, i.e., 06.01.2015. Out of the maintenance allowance of 4000/-
of petitioner no.2, the respondent is directed to ₹ pay 2000/- in cash to petitioner
no.1 and deposit remaining ₹ amount of 2000/- in the form of FDR in the name of
petitioner no.2 ₹ from the date of filing petition 06.01.2015 to meet out any

Page | 5
emergency as well as for better fortune of minor-daughter. The original FDRs be
kept by the respondent with him and photo copy thereof be placed on record after
the interval of every six months. When the petitioner no.2 would attain majority,
the respondent would hand over all the original FDRs to her, so that petitioner no.2
may submit the same for encashment with the order of this court.

Page | 6
CASE NO. 2

Pooja Soni, aged about 24 years, wife of Shri Radha Krishan son of Shri Devi Lal, daughter
of Shri Rajender Soni, resident of Village Chudiwal Dhanna, Tehsil Abohar, District
Fazilkan, at present 6/242, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

.....Petitioner No.1

And

Radha Krishan, aged about 26 years, son of late Shri Devi Lal, resident of Village Chudiwal
Dhanna, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilkan (Punjab).

.....Petitioner No.2

Matter: Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

CIS No.: HMA/69 of 2018 HMA

Case No. : 31-HMA of 2018

Date of Institution: 28.10.2018

Date of Decision: 29.04.2019

Court: Shri. R.K. Mehta, Addl. District Judge

Place: Sirsa, Haryana

Advocate with Petitioner No.1: Sh. Ravinder Monga

Advocate with Petitioner No.2: Sh. Arjun Narula

FACTS:

 This petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been brought
by petitioners Pooja Sooni and Radha Krishan, whose marriage was solemnized as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies on 20.05.2017 at Sirsa, District Sirsa, for dissolution of
their marriage by mutual consent alleging that they could not adjust with each other
due to their temperamental differences; that they tried to adjust with each other but

Page | 7
 could not and ultimately they separated on 25.06.2017 and since then they have been
residing separately. On these premises, the petitioners have sought dissolution of their
marriage.
 Joint statement of the parties to the petition was recorded on 28.10.2018 at the time of
first motion. The parties were given statutory period of six months to think over the
matter. The parties appeared again on 29.04.2019 and have made a joint statement for
passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent. They also made a fresh statement on
the same lines.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT AND DECISION

 The court satisfied that this petition has been brought by the parties voluntarily; that
the parties are living separate for the last more than 1½ years; that it is not possible for
them to live together; that the parties have reached a point of no return and it is not
possible now to save their marriage.
 The parties have settled their claims as to permanent alimony, dowry etc. and now
nothing is due from each other. Petitioners No.1 Pooja Soni and No.2 Radha Krishan
are aged 24 years and 26 years respectively and they have scope of re-marrying and
started their lives afresh.
 In these circumstances, this Court accepted the petition and thereby dissolved the
marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce by their mutual consent under section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Page | 8