Kaushal Gupta vs Rakhi Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 4733 MP

                                                                     01

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                Criminal Revision No.1291/2020
             (Kaushal Gupta & ors. Vs. Rakhi Gupta)

Gwalior, Dated: 4.4.2022
      Shri R.S.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the respondent.

Petitioners have filed this criminal revision being aggrieved by

order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar on

14.2.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.65/2019 by which learned Appellate

Court has confirmed the order passed in Case No.45/2017 on

23.4.2019 under Domestic Violence Act.

In brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this revision

are that respondent Rakhi Gupta is wife of petitioner No.1 and

petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the

respondent. Marriage of the respondent was solemnized with petitioner

No.1 on 10.12.2013 as per Hinde rites. After marriage dispute arose

between them. Thereafter from 17.5.2017 they separated. Respondent

filed a complaint against the petitioners. Beside this, a criminal

complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act 2005 was filed against the petitioners. On this

complaint, criminal case No.45/2017 was registered. After issuance of

notice to the petitioners, trial Court on 23.4.2019 by partly allowing

the petition of the respondent directed petitioner No.1 to pay a sum of

Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent and her child by way of

maintenance. Against this order, both the parties preferred appeals

before the Court of Session. The Court of Session after hearing the

parties is of the opinion that beside herself respondent is having one

son and in this situation, order passed by the trial Court for

maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month is appropriate and dismissed the

appeals.

Aggrieved by the order of the Courts below, petitioners have

filed this revision on the ground that petitioner No.1 is already giving a

sum of Rs.3,000/- per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as per the

order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Despite this, by awarding a

sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance, trial Court has

committed grave illegality. In support of his submission, learned

counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Bombay

High Court Aurangabad Bench in Vishal vs. Sow. Aparna & Anr.

decided on 13.6.2018 in Criminal Revision Application No.203/2017

wherein it has been held as under:-

"27 In view of the facts, circumstances and legal provisions discussed herein above, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Latur, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is directed that while computing the amount of maintenance payable to the respondents for the period from 27.8.2014 to 26.8.2015, as per the order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judge of the Family Court shall take into account the amount of maintenance paid by the husband under the DV Act for the aforesaid period and adjust the said amount against the amount payable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C."

Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court at

Jabalpur in Arif Khan vs. Ruby Khan and another decided on

2.3.2020 in Criminal Revision No.4737/2019 wherein it has been held

as under:-

"19. After perusal of Section 20(1)(d), this court is of the view that the order passed under Section 20 of the DV Act, whether it is temporary or permanent, It is under or in addition to the order of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

20. So far as interim maintenance awarded under Section 20 of DV Act is concerned, this court is of the view that the maintenance allowance awarded under Section 125 of CrPC by the Family Court and interim maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act awarded by the Trial Court are of the same nature. It is not a separate amount, it is under or in addition to each other.

Interim maintenance Rs.2,500/- is fixed by the trial court in a case pending between the applicant and respondent No.1 under DV Act. This court is of the view that amount awarded by the trial court under any provisions of the DV Act, until and unless not specifically mentioned in the order, it should be adjusted with the order for awarding maintenance under section 125 of CrPC. "

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On going through the order of the trial Court, it is clear that

petitioners nowhere in their reply have stated that any order under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the

respondent. Before this Court also no document has been produced in

this regard. Since neither the petitioners have raised this point before

the trial Court nor filed any document in this regard before this Court,

therefore, this Court cannot look into such aspect and the decisions

relied on by the petitioners are of no use in the present case.

The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi

Administration as reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that the

jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is

severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of

evidence. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in

the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip

Singh Anand and Others as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659.

In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court,

the Courts below have not committed any illegality or perversity in

passing the impugned orders. Hence, this revision petition is

dismissed.

(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge ms/-

MADHU SOODAN PRASAD 2022.04.05 18:10:22 +05'00'