judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash
Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [AIR 1968 Delhi 174]
wherein it has been opined thus:-
“An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be
capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be
heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is
for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent
grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his
control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of
maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not
disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against him.”
22. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is absolutely
clear that once the husband is an able-bodied young man capable of
earning sufficient money, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation
of maintaining his wife.
23. It has to be remembered that when the woman leaves
the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived
of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes,
she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling
that her fearless courage has brought her misfortune. At this stage,
the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is
bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm
for which she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the
lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance. [ Ref: Shamima
Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (supra)].
24. The learned counsel for the husband has vehemently
argued that the learned courts below have ignored the fact that the
wife is earning Rs.9,000/- by taking her income only to be Rs.5000/-.
I am afraid that such contention is belied from the records as the
learned appellate court has duly taken into consideration the fact that
the wife was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/-.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.26 of 2015 and Cr.
Revision No. 369 of 2014.
Date of decision: 1.6.2015.
Vipul Lakhanpal Vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma
Coram
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Citation; 2015 CRLJ 3451HP
2. The wife filed a petition through Protection Officer, under
section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (for short, the Act) against her husband. It transpires that wife
had made a written complaint before the Protection Officer, in which
it had been averred that her marriage was solemnized with the
husband on 30.10.2009 in accordance with the Hindu Rites. After the
marriage, she went to the house of husband at Longwood, Shimla
where on the first night the husband threatened her and told her that
had he been in possession of a knife he could have killed her and in
case she opened her mouth her entire family will be killed by him.
3. The wife thereafter was taken to the native village at
Hamirpur by her husband and his family members for POOJA
purpose, where the husband and his family members also maltreated
her. The husband also told the wife that in fact he wanted to marry
with the niece of Karuna Vaid and he does not like her.
4. The husband could not consummate the marriage with
the wife as he is not physically fit. The wife also joined the company
of her husband at Mumbai where he could also not consummate the
marriage with her, rather he had beaten her and her mother at
Mumbai. Two meetings were called by the relatives of the wife,
where father of the husband admitted that his son is not physically fit.
5. Thereafter, the husband attacked his wife in her parental
house and in this manner, made her life hell by making telephonic
calls and SMS and, therefore, action be taken against him. The
Protection Officer filed incident report. The complaint was forwarded
by him through incident report in the Court.
6. The respondents contested the petition by filing their
separate replies. In his reply the husband took preliminary objection
regarding maintainability. On merits, he denied that he or his family
members ever maltreated or had beaten the wife. The wife remained
with him and his family members even at his native place in District
Hamirpur and also stayed with him at Mumbai. The wife joined his
company at Mumbai when she was brought by his father to Mumbai.
The meeting was convened by the relatives of the husband but the
wife refused to join the company of her husband without sufficient
cause. In fact, in the meeting father and relatives of the wife asked
the father of husband to pay Rs.15-20 lacs and get divorce from the
wife and the husband and his family members never maltreated the
petitioner. The wife also lodged FIR against the respondents under
Sections 498-A and 506 IPC at Solan just to harass the
respondents. The petition filed by the wife is false and frivolous,
same be dismissed with costs.
7. The other respondents also filed the reply in which they
denied the allegations as had been made by the wife.
8. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence and
hearing the parties vide his order dated 1.9.2012 partly allowed the
petition of the wife against the respondent-husband, whereby he was
prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence and further
ordered to pay a maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month
alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
9. The husband assailed this order before the learned
appellate authority, who affirmed and upheld the order passed by the
learned Magistrate.
10. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned courts
below, the husband has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash
and set-aside the aforesaid orders.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the records of the case.
12. It has been alleged that the learned courts below have
failed to appreciate the fact that the wife who is TGT in Maths and
was drawing a handsome salary of Rs.9,000/- per month and was
therefore, not entitled to maintenance. It was further alleged that due
to the act and conduct of the wife, the husband was compelled to
tender resignation from his job as Manager on 25.4.2010 and ever
since then not only that he is doing any job, rather he is under mental
distress and undergoing treatment at IGMC Shimla. It has been lastly
contended that the courts below have miserably failed to appreciate
that the husband has no source of income and therefore, cannot be
directed to pay maintenance.
13. The learned counsel for the husband has vehemently
argued that since the wife is earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per
month whereas the husband is not at all earning, therefore, she is not
entitled to maintenance.
14. In support of his contention, strong reliance has been
placed by him on the judgement of learned single Judge of Delhi High
Court in Crl. M.C. No. 491 of 2009 titled Sanjay Bhardwaj & ors. vs.
The State & anr., decided on 27.8.2010, particularly on the following
observations:-
“4. A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic
Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife
regarding maintenance. It only enables the Magistrate to pass a
maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws.
While, the Act specifies the duties and functions of protection
officer, police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility
providers and duties of Government, the Act is silent about the
duties of husband or the duties of wife. Thus, maintenance can be
fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per
prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to
the wife. Under prevalent laws i.e. Hindu Adoption & Maintenance
Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C - a husband is
supposed to maintain his un-earning spouse out of the income
which he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a
wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he
earns or not. Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg,
borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the
husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally
capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully
employed before marriage. If the husband was BSc. and Masters in
Marketing Management from Pondicherry University, the wife was
MA (English) & MBA. If the husband was working as a Manager
abroad, the wife with MBA degree was also working in an MNC in
India. Under these circumstances, fixing of maintenance by the
Court without there being even a prima facie proof of the husband
being employed in India and with clear proof of the fact that the
passport of the husband was seized, he was not permitted to leave
country, (the bail was given with a condition that he shall keep
visiting Investigating Officer as and when called) is contrary to law
and not warranted under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution
provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and
creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree,
cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also
holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one
cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and
other is not employed. As far as dependency on parents is
concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he
cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the parents and maintain
wife. The parents had done their duty of educating them and now
they cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are
grown up and must take care of themselves.
6. It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption
that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or
domestic violence. Marriages do fail for various other reasons. The
difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted
in Courts. Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in
marriages and in averments made before the Courts. “
15. I have gone through the aforesaid judgement and find
myself unable to agree with the same.
16. Indisputably the factum of marriage has not been denied
by the husband. If that be so, it is not only his moral obligation but
legal duty to maintain his wife by providing food, clothing and shelter,
if not anything more.
17. The law on the subject has been elaborately dealt in
Kota Varaprasada Rao and another vs. Kota China Venkaiah
and others AIR 1992 AP 1, wherein it has been held as follows:-
“8. The oldest case decided on the subject is one in
Khetramani Dasi v. Kashinath Das, (1868) 2 Bengal LR 15.
There, the father-in-law was sued by a Hindu widow for
maintenance. Deciding the right of the widow for
maintenance, the Calcutta High Court referred to the Shastric
law as under:
"The duty of maintaining one's family is, however, clearly laid
down in the Dayabhaga, Chapter II, Section XXIII, in these
words:
'The maintenance of the family is an indispensable obligation,
as Manu positively declares.' Sir Thomas Strange in his work
on Hindu Law Vol. I page 67, says:
'Maintenance by a man of his dependants is, with the
Hindus, a primary duty. They hold that he must be just, before
he is generous, his charity beginning at home; and that even
sacrifice is mockery, if to the injury of those whom he is bound
to maintain. Nor of his duty in this respect are his children the
only objects, co-extensive as it is with the family whatever be
its composition, as consisting of other relations and
connexions, including (it may be) illegitimate offspring. It
extends according to Manu and Yajnavalkya to the outcast, if
not to the adulterous wife; not to mention such as are
excluded from the inheritance, whether through their fault, or
their misfortune; all being entitled to be maintained with food
and raiment."
At page 21, the learned Judges have also referred to a
situation where there is nothing absolutely for the Hindu
widow to maintain herself from the parents-in-law's branch by
referring to the following texts from NARADA:
"In Book IV, Chapter I Section I, Art. XIII of Celebrooke's
Digest, are the following texts from NARADA:
'After the death of her husband, the nearest kinsman
on his side has authority over a woman who has no son; in
regard to the expenditurte of wealth, the government of
herself, and her maintenance, he has full dominion. If the
husband's family be extinct, or the kinsman be unmanly, or
destitute of means to support her, or if there is no Sapindas, a
kinsman on the father's side shall have authority over the
woman; and the comment on this passage is : "'Kinsman on
the husband's side; of his father's or mother's race in the
order of proximity. 'Maintenance' means subsistence. Thus,
without his consent, she may not give away anything to any
person, nor indulge herself in matters of shape, taste, small,
or the like, and if the means of subsistence be wanting he
must provide her maintenance. But if the kinsman be unmanly
(defecient in manly capacity to discriminate right from wrong)
or destitute of means to support her, if there be no such
person able to provide the means of subsistence, or if there
be no SAPINDAS, then any how, determining from her own
judgment on the means of preserving life and duty, let her
announce her affinity in this mode : 'I am the wife of such a
man's uncle; 'and if that be ineffectual, let her revert to her
father's kindred; or in failure of this, recourse may be had
even to her mother's kindered" (Emphasis supplied.)
In Book III, Chapter II, Section II, Art. CXXII, of Colebrooke's
Digest, we have the following texts and comments:
"She who is deprived of her husband should not reside
apart from her father, mother, son, or brother, from her
husband's father or mother, or from her maternal uncle; else
she becomes infamous."
As per the above texts and comments, a Hindu widow if the
parents-in-law's branch is unmanly or destitute of means to
support her is entitled to be with the father or the kinsman on
the father's side.
9. In Janki v. Nand Ram, (1889) ILR 11 All 194 (FB), a
Hindu widow after the death of her father-in-law sued her
brother-in-law and her father-in-law's widow. The Full Bench
of the Allahabad High Court held that the father-in-law was
under a moral, though not legal, obligation not only to
maintain his widowed daughter-in-law during his life time, but
also to make provision out of his self-acquired property for her
maintenance after his death; and that such moral obligation in
the father became by reason of his self-acquired property
having come by inheritance into the hands of his surviving
son, a legal obligation enforceable by a suit against the son
and against the property in question. While so deciding, the
learned Judges at page 210 made a reference to a passage
from Dr. Gurudas Banerjee's Tagore Law Lectures, thus:
"We have hitherto been considering the claim of a
widow for maintenance against the person inheriting her
husband's estate. The question next arises how far she is
entitled to be maintained by the heir when her husband leaves
no property and how far she can claim maintenance from
other relatives. The Hindu sages emphatically enjoin upon
every person the duty of maintaining the dependant members
of his family. The following are a few of the many texts on the
subject:--
MANU: 'The ample support of those who are entitled to
maintenance is rewarded with bliss in heaven; but hell is the
portion of that man whose family is afflicted with pain by his
neglect: therefore let him maintain his family with the utmost
care.'
NARADA: 'Even they who are born, or yet unborn and
they who exist in the womb, require funds for subsistence;
deprivation of the means of subsistence is reprehended.'
BRIHASPATI: 'A man may give what remains after the food
and clothing of his family, the giver of more who leaves his
family naked and unfed, may taste honey at first, but still
afterwards find it poison.’ ”
The text of MANU as added reads:
"He who bestows gifts on strangers, with a view to
worldly fame, while he suffers his family to live in distress,
though he has power to support them, touches his lips with
honey, but swallows poison; such virtue is counterfeit: even
what he does for the sake of his future spiritual body, to the
injury of those whom he is found to maintain, shall bring him
ultimate misery both in this life and in the next."
Having so quoted the texts, the Full Bench based its judgment
on the proposition:
"......under the Hindu law purely moral obligations
imposed by religious precepts upon the father ripen
into legally enforceable obligations as against the son
who inherits his father's property."
10. In Kamini Dassee v. Chandra Pode Handle, (1890)
ILR 17 Cal 373, it is held by the Calcutta High Court that the
principle that an heir succeeding to the property takes it for
the spiritual benefit of the late proprietor, and is, therefore,
under a legal obligation to maintain persons whom the late
proprietor was morally bound to support, has ample basis in
the Hindu law of the Bengal School and accordingly decreed
the suit for maintenance laid by a widowed brother against her
husband's brothers.
11. In Devi Prasad v. Gunvati Koer, (1894) ILR 22 Cal 410,
deciding an action brought for maintenance by a Hindu widow
against the brothers and nephew of her deceased husband
after the death of her father-in-law, the Calcutta High Court
held that the plaintiff's husband had a vested interest in the
ancestral property, and could have, even during his father's
life time, enforced partition of that property, and as the Hindu
law provides that the surviving coparceners should maintain
the widow of a deceased coparcener, the plaintiff was entitled
to maintenance.
12. In Bai Mangal v. Bai Rukmini, (1899) ILR 23 Bom 291,
the statement of law of MAYNE that
"After marriage, her (meaning the daughter's)
maintenance is a charge upon her husband's family,
but if they are unable to support her, she must be
provided for by the., family of her father."
was understood to have been one of monetary character than
laying down any general legal obligation. The learned Judge,
Ranede, J., after examining all the authorities has broadly laid
down the law, as he understood, thus:
"In fact, all the text writers appear to be in
agreement on this point, namely, that it is only the
unmarried daughters who have a legal claim for
maintenance from the husband's family. If this
provision fails, and the widowed daughter returns to
live with her father or brother, there is a moral and
social obligation, but not a legally enforceable right by
which her maintenance can be claimed as a charge on
her father's estate in the hands of his heirs." (page
295).
13. However, the same learned Judge, Ranede, J., in a
later case in Yamuna Bai v. Manubai, (1899) ILR 23 Bom 608,
expressed his absolute concurrence with the law laid down by
the Allahabad High Court in Janaki's case, (1889 ILR 11 All
194) (supra), as regards the right of the widow of a
predeceased son to maintenance against the estate of the
deceased father-in-law in the hands of his heirs.
14. The view of Ranede, J., in Bai Man-gal's case, (1899
ILR 23 Bom 291) (supra), was further conditioned by Ammer
Ali, J., in Mokhoda Dassee v. Nundo Lall Haldar, (1900) ILR
27 Cal 555, by holding that the right of maintenance is again
subject to the satisfaction of the fact that the widowed sonless
daughter must have been at the time of her father's death
maintained by him as a dependant member of the family.
15. But, both the views of Ranede, J., in Bai Mangal's
case, (1899 ILR 23 Bom 291) (supra), and Ameer Ali, J., in
Mokhode Dassee's case, (1900 ILR 27 Cal 555) (supra), did
not find acceptance of A. K. Sinha, J., of the Calcutta High
Court in Khanta Moni v. Shyam Chand, . The learned Judge
held that a widowed daughter to sustain her claim for
maintenance need not be a destitute nor need be actually
maintained by the father during his life time... All that she is
required to prove to get such maintenance, the learned Judge
held, is that at the material time she is a destitute and she
could not get any maintenance from her husband's family.”
“19. In Appavu Udayan v. Nallamrnal, AIR 1949 Madras 24,
the Madras High Court has to deal with the rights of daughterin-
law against her father-in-law and his estate in the hands of
his heirs. There it is held that the father-in-law is under a
moral obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law out
of his self-acquired property and that on his death if his selfacquired
property descends by inheritance to his heirs, the
moral liability of the father-in-law ripens into a legal one
against his heirs.
20. A Full Bench of this High Court in T. A. Lakshmi
Narasamba v. T. Sundaramma, AIR 1981 Andh Pra 88 held:
"The moral obligation of a father-in-law possessed of
separate or self-acquired property to maintain the widowed
daughter-in-law ripens into a legal obligation in the hands of
persons to whom he has either bequeathed or made a gift of
his property.
Under the Hindu law there is a moral obligation on the
father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law and the heirs
who inherit the property are liable to maintain the dependants.
It is the duty of the Hindu heirs to provide for the bodily and
mental or spiritual needs of their immediate and nearer
ancestors to relieve them from bodily and mental discomfort
and to protect their souls from the consequences of sin. They
should maintain the dependants pf the persons of property
they succeeded. Merely because the property is transferred
by gift or by will in favour of the heirs the obligation is not
extinct. When there is property in the hands of the heirs
belonging to the deceased who had a moral duty to provide
maintenance, it becomes a legal duty on the heirs. It makes
no difference whether the property is received either by way
of succession or by way of gift or will, the principle being
common in either case."
21. It is rather pertinent to notice here that the view of
Ranede, J., in Bai Mangal's case, (1899 ILR 23 Bom 291)
(supra) has been dissented from specifically by the Full Bench
of this High Court.”
18. The next question, which arises for consideration is as to
whether employed wife can be refused maintenance only on the
ground that the husband is unemployed.
19. It can never be forgotten that inherent and fundamental
principle behind section 12 of the Act is for amelioration of the
financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that
woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
The statute commands that there has to be some acceptable
arrangements so that she can sustain herself. Sustenance does not
mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival.
20. A woman, who is constrained to leave the matrimonial
home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace
and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law,
she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have
lived in the house of her husband. She cannot be compelled to
become a destitute or a beggar.
21. Now, I deal with the plea advanced by the husband that
he does not have the job and his survival is on the little pension that
his father is getting. Similar question came up before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan JT 2015 (3)
SC 576, wherein it has been held as follows:-
“15. ………Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that
he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or
his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in
fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy,
able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the
legal obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an
absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this
Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. [JT
1997 (7) SC 531: 1997 (7) SCC 7] has held as follows:-
“The court has to consider the status of the parties, their
respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having
regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance
and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but
involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of
maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can
live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the
mode of life she was used to when she lived with her
husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the
prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so
fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a
measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
[JT 2008 (1) SC 78 : 2008 (2) SCC 316], it has been ruled that:-
“Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is
specially enacted to protect women and children and as
noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v.
Veena Kaushal [1978 (4) SCC 70] falls within constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the
Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose.
The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides
a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter
to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and
natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and
parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The
aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [JT 2005 (3) SC 164]”.
16.1. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the
husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that
he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long
as he is capable of earning.
17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the
judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash
Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [AIR 1968 Delhi 174]
wherein it has been opined thus:-
“An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be
capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be
heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is
for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent
grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his
control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of
maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not
disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against him.”
22. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is absolutely
clear that once the husband is an able-bodied young man capable of
earning sufficient money, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation
of maintaining his wife.
23. It has to be remembered that when the woman leaves
the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived
of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes,
she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling
that her fearless courage has brought her misfortune. At this stage,
the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is
bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm
for which she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the
lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance. [ Ref: Shamima
Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (supra)].
24. The learned counsel for the husband has vehemently
argued that the learned courts below have ignored the fact that the
wife is earning Rs.9,000/- by taking her income only to be Rs.5000/-.
I am afraid that such contention is belied from the records as the
learned appellate court has duly taken into consideration the fact that
the wife was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/-.
25. The learned counsel for the wife has further vehemently
argued that since the husband is already getting a salary of
Rs.9,000/-, therefore, the amount of maintenance can in no manner
be said to be justified. I am afraid that this contention is without force.
It has to be remembered that it was probably because of the fact that
husband was getting Rs.60,000/- when he was at Mumbai and his
carry home salary was Rs.45,000/- that too in the year 2010 that this
matrimonial relationship came into existence. It was after taking into
consideration the status and the earning capacity of the husband that
the marriage proposal was accepted and thereafter solemnized.
Therefore, taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, coupled
with the price index and the high cost of living, the maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- in no manner can be held to be excessive.
26. That apart after having rendered the wife a total
destitute, the husband cannot be heard to complain that because now
she is earning, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance.
After-all, it was the circumstances created by the husband which
compelled the wife to look for means to sustain herself and she
accordingly took up the job of teaching.
27. Though the wife has filed a separate revision petition
claiming enhancement of maintenance and compensation, but after
having gone through the records of the case, I find that award of
maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and award of compensation to
the tune of Rs.10,000/- is just and proper.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in both
the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs. The Registry is directed to place a
copy of this judgment on the file of connected matter.
June 1, 2015. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
No comments:
Post a Comment