Smt. Shikha Sharma vs Somit Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1290 MP

                                         1         CRIMINAL REVISION   NO. 1933/2013




       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
                                     JABALPUR

Criminal Revision No.               1933/2013
Parties Name:                       Smt. Shikha Sharma and another Vs. Somit Sharma
Bench Constituted                   Single Bench
Judgment delivered By               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved        for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties         For applicants :Shri S. N. Vishwakarma, Advocate

                                    For non applicant/respondent: Shri Abhijeet
                                    Singh, Advocate
Law laid down

Significant         paragraph
number

   :Through Physical Hearing:
                                       ORDER

06.04.2021 Applicants have filed this criminal revision being aggrieved

by order dated 22.8.2013 passed in MJC No. 128/2011, by First

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur (Smt.

Shashikiran Dubey).

2. Application filed by applicants under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance to them was dismissed by

Family Court. Family Court has given a finding that non applicant

wants to keep applicants with him. He also get himself transferred to

Mumbai and arranged for residence of applicants, but applicants

themselves did not went to Mumbai to live along with non applicant. It

was held that non applicant was earning money by working in a Private

Company. He was getting salary of Rs. 26,500/-. Applicant no.1 is an

educated lady and she has studied MBA and from Sagar University has 2 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1933/2013

done Master of Journalism and Communication, therefore, presumption

was drawn by Family Court that she is able to maintain herself. Family

Court further held that applicant no.1 is in possession of ATM Card of

SBI Bank and she has also withdrawn money from that account. Non

applicant has also given interim maintenance amount to applicant no.1

till January, 2014 and even when application filed under Section 125 of

the Cr.P.C. was dismissed then also non applicant continued to pay

maintenance amount. In these circumstances, Family Court held that

non applicant did not neglect maintenance of applicant no.1. Family

Court has also given a finding that there was differences between

parents of non applicant and parents of applicants. Non applicant has

not harassed applicants. There was differences between the parents of

bride and groom. On aforesaid reasoning, application filed by

applicants for grant of maintenance was dismissed.

3. Perused the record of case and also examination and cross

examination of witnesses.

4. From going through the deposition filed by applicants as well as

non applicant, it is clear that there is differences between applicant

no.1 and non applicant. Said differences between them is not in

respect of demand of dowry or harassment. The problem between

applicant no.1 and non applicant is in respect of their egos and due to

behaviour of applicant no.1 and non applicant, they were unable to

lead happy and peaceful marital life. Fact situation is that applicants

no. 1 and 2 are living separately at Jabalpur. On perusal of records and

deposition of witnesses, it is clear that though applicant no.1 has 3 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1933/2013

withdrawn some amount of money by using ATM Card from account of

SBI, but that does not show that non applicant has made arrangement

for permanent maintenance of applicant. There is no evidence on

record to show that non applicant is regularly depositing money in

applicants' account which is being withdrawn by applicant no.1 for their

maintenance. In the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,

applicant no.1 had made pleadings that non applicant is not paying

maintenance amount and they are unable to maintain themselves.

5. In reply to application for maintenance, non applicant has stated

that he had never neglected maintenance of applicants. He is ready to

keep applicants with him. However, he has not stated that what

arrangements he had made for maintenance of applicants. Though,

some amount has been deposited in fixed deposit by non applicant, but

applicants had stated that said amount which has been deposited in

fixed deposit is in fact the money which has been given by father of

applicant Smt. Shikha Sharma to Somit Sharma. It has also been

admitted by parties that amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- has been deposited

in account of applicant no.1. Non applicant has not led any evidence

to show that he had made permanent arrangements for grant of

maintenance to applicants. Withdrawal of money from joint account on

one or two occasion is not sufficient to show that there is no neglect on

the part of non applicant in maintenance of applicants. No evidence

has been adduced by non applicant to show that applicant no.1 is

earning and able to maintain herself.

4 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1933/2013

6. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that applicant nos.1 and 2 are

unable to maintain themselves. Non applicant is working in a private

company and he has resources to maintain. Applicant no.1 has filed a

suit for divorce. There are differences between applicant no.1 and non

applicant and they are unable to live together, therefore, it cannot be

said that applicants without any cause are not living with non applicant.

Learned Family Court has held that there was differences between in-

laws of both the parties and there was no cruelty by non applicant. In

this circumstance, maintenance can be awarded to applicants.

Applicants have made allegation of harassment. From the evidence

available on record, it is also evident that there is differences between

in-laws and also between husband and wife. If wife shows

apprehension of harassment, it is sufficient ground for her to not live

with the husband. It is the responsibility of husband to protect wife

from unpleasantness and her harassment by his relatives. If

atmosphere of house is unpleasant due to treatment of in- laws to wife

that can also be sufficient cause for refusing to live with the husband

and, therefore, Family Court has committed an error in not considering

harassment of applicant due to unpleasant atmosphere at her husband

house and due to treatment meted out to her. Applicants have made

averment that they are unable to maintain themselves and they have

no income. Non applicant has sufficient income to maintain the

applicants. Husband is under obligation to give maintenance to his wife

and children until they became major or until daughter is married.

5 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1933/2013

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

criminal revision filed by the applicants is allowed. Order passed by

the Principal Judge Family Court, Jabalpur dated 22.8.2013 in

M.J.C.No. 128/2011 is set aside. Non applicant is directed to pay

maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicants no. 1 and 2 from

the date of order.

8. With the aforesaid direction, criminal revision filed by the

applicants is disposed off.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

DUBEY/-

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2021.04.08 18:14:07 +05'30'