IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 286 CR-3498-2024 Date of Decision.:09.07.2025 Laxmi Devi …..Pe..oner Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the peoner. None for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Noce of moon was directed to be issued to respondent No.1 only to explore the possibility of amicable se%lement. However, nobody has turned up on his behalf, despite service. So, ma%er is being considered on merits. 2. Marriage of the peoner with respondent No.1 Ashok Kumar was performed about 30 years back. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born out of the said wedlock. Peoner filed an applicaon under Secon 12 of the Protecon of Women from Domesc Violence Act, 2005 contending that House No.504 situated at Krishna Nagar, Hisar was purchased by her father for her but the husband Ashok Kumar was bent upon and pressurizing her to transfer this property in his name. Peoner even alleged assault on her, regarding which a criminal case was registered. It was further pleaded that respondent- husband was neglecng her as well as the children despite the fact that he was ge5ng pension of ₹40,000/- per month. She prayed for various reliefs including interim maintenance NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3498-2024 -2- allowance, compensaon and residence order. 3. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class accepted the applicaon for interim maintenance by direcng the respondent to pay ₹3,000/- per month as personal expenses to the peoner ll disposal of the peon. Said order dated 21.08.2023 of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was challenged by the husband Ashok Kumar. The court of learned Addional Sessions Judge by way of impugned order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order passed by learned JMIC, by accepng the appeal of the husband. 4. Assailing the above order, it is contended by learned counsel that well-reasoned order passed by the Magistrate has been wrongly set aside by learned Addional Sessions Judge. 5. This Court does not find merit in the contenon. It will be apt to reproduce the observaons made by the first Appellate Court, which read as under: “9. The affidavit of the assets, income and liabilies have also been filed by both the pares. In this affidavit, the applicant Laxmi Devi solemnly affirmed to be having no source of income and she shown only one house as her self-acquired property. Apart from that, she also affirmed in this affidavit that the present appellant namely Ashok Kumar was having income more than Rs.50,000/- per month. Per contra, the present appellant also filed his similar affidavit suggesng that the appellant Ashok Kumar was having pension of Rs. 4005 per month . Except this pension, the appellant was not having any other mean of income. 10. Though the applicant/ respondent stated in her affidavit to be owner of one house which was alleged as her self-acquired property, yet in her whole pleadings, she nowhere menoned the source of income i.e. her income from which this property was allegedly acquired by her. It was also not the pleadings of the applicant that she was doing any job or having NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3498-2024 -3- some other source of income through which she had acquired that property i.e. house No.504, Krishna Nagar, Hisar. On one side, she claimed in her pleadings that this property was purchased by her father in her name but her father had also expired in the year 2002 whereas the plot, upon which this house was constructed, was purchased through a sale deed dated 21.03.2017 bearing document No.9868 for an amount of Rs.25 Lac. The copy of this sale deed has been placed on record by the appellant. Meaning thereby, this plot was purchased nearly 15 years aEer the death of father of the applicant. Apart from that, the statement of bank account of the appellant as well as the loan account statement were also placed on record by the appellant, suggesng in a prima facie manner that the present appellant had paid the sale consideraon for the said property from his own income as well as the cleared the loan amount also. 11. Hence, as a necessary implicaon, it has emerged that the applicant did not come to the court with clean hands and she had concealed the true and material facts from the court. Even the pleadings as well as the affidavits filed by both the pares in regard their liabilies and income suggest that the applicant is having the possession of the House No.504, Krishna Nagar, Hisar. Even this fact was also not denied specifically during arguments that the applicant has given one floor of this house as well as one shop on rent and from that, she was also having income. Despite of that, no such income was revealed by the applicant in her affidavit. Even otherwise also, the present appellant is having only the monthly pension of Rs.4005 aEer his rerement. In such circumstances, this court is having a view that, when the applicant has concealed the true and material facts from the court, she does not deserve to receive the maintenance allowance from the appellant. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 21.8.2023 is hereby set aside. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned lower court. File of the appeal be consigned to the record room aEer due compliance.” 6. It is clearly evident from the aforesaid observaons as made by the Appellate Court that the property in queson, which was alleged by the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3498-2024 -4- peoner to be purchased by her father for her, was in fact purchased nearly 15 years aEer the death of her father and prima facie, it is the husband i.e. respondent herein, who had paid the enre sale consideraon from his own income so as to purchase the plot on which the house was built. That house was in possession of the peoner, which fact was not denied by the peoner during arguments. Not only this, peoner had given one floor of the said house as well as one shop on rent, from which she was deriving sufficient income. All these facts were concealed by the peoner from the Court. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court did not commit any error in accepng the appeal of the husband- respondent herein and by rejecng the applicaon for interim maintenance. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in absence of any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 09, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document