Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mantu Gadari vs Smt Ramkali Gadari on 6 April, 2022
Author: Anjuli Palo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 6th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2627 of 2021
Between:-
MANTU GADARI S/O SHRI CHATUR GADARI ,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIMARY
TEACHER GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL VILLAGE
PATHREHTA KATNI PRESENTLY VILLAGE
SURSARAI JHARA POLICE STTION SARAI
SINGRAULI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT RAMKALI GADARI W/O SHRI MANTU
GADARI , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE KHIRWA NO 1 P O HANTALA
TEHSIL VIJAYRAGHAVGARH KATNI MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. INDRAPAL GADARI S/O SHRI MANTU GADARI ,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
VILL. KHIRWA NO. 1, P.O. HANTALA, TEH.
VIJAYRAGHAVGARH, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This revision coming for admission as well as on IA No.18553/2021 this
day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act has been
preferred by the applicant-husband being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2021
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in M.J.C. No.189/2017,
whereby application of respondents filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for
maintenance has been partly allowed and the applicant-husband has been directed
to pay Rs.5000/- per month from the date of order to the respondent No.1 as
maintenance.
2. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with
the respondent No.1 and out of their wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. After
some time, dispute arose between the applicant and respondent No.1. Applicant
and his family members started demanding dowry from the parents of the
respondent No.1 and quarreling with her and her parents and the applicant refused
to live with the respondent No.1. Due to harassment, respondent No.1 was
compelled to leave her matrimonial house. Therefore, she left the house of
applicant for her parental house and since then she is residing separately.
3. Respondent No.1 and her son filed an application under Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Katni wherein the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Katni has directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month from
the date of order as maintenance to the respondent No.1 and dismissed the prayer
in respect of respondent No.1.
4. Learned trial Court found that the respondents are residing separately
from the applicant. Respondent No.1 is a house wife and has no source of income.
On the other hand, appellant is Govt. Teacher and is getting salary of about
Rs.45000/- per month. Thus, Rs. 5,000/- per month was fixed by the trial Court as
maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent No.1.
5 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is allegation of
adultery against the respondent No.1. It is also submitted that the Family Court has
not given any finding with regard to specific pleading of applicant that respondent
No.1 was living separately without any justifiable reason. It is further submitted that
the Family Court has recorded the finding contrary to material available on record
and which is also based on assumptions and presumptions. Hence, he prayed to
set aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2021. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment rendered in case of
Siddanki Ram Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2010) 7 SCC 697 , Prakash Kushwaha
vs. Smt. Pooja (2014) 2 JabLJ 189, Benta Wilson vs. Wilson Gonsalvous (1988)
2 KLT 597 and Anil vs. Smt. Sunita (CRR No.829/2014).
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is allegation of
adultery against the wife. It is mentioned in the impugned order that in the absence
of any cogent evidence regarding adultery, the said allegation was found unproved.
It is quite unacceptable that the wife of the applicant conceived from an other
person. No independent witness has been examined to establish that wife is in
relationship with any other person. It is important to mention here that no name is
mentioned by the applicant before the trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that sister of the
respondent No.1 stated against the respondent No.1 regarding adultery. This Court
cannot be oblivious of the fact that both the sisters married in same family. Sister
of the respondent No.1 married with the brother of the applicant and she is still
residing there, hence, it is apparently clear that she stated under compulsion not to
state against the applicant. Further that, if the applicant himself resided separately
from the respondent No.1 for about three years and he never met with the
respondent No.1, it is cruelty on the part of the applicant towards his wife-
respondent No.1.
9. Applicant challenged that his wife was pregnant from an other person.
Nowadays, there are so many advance technologies are available to ascertain as to
who is the biological father of the child, but no such prayer has been made by the
applicant before the trial Court. This Court also concurs with the findings of
learned trial Court, which is against the applicant. Applicant is healthy person and
also working as Govt. Teacher, may be on contract basis. But, the respondent
No.1 is house wife. She has no source of income. It is also not proved that she
was living separately without any reason from the applicant.
10. In the case of Shamima Farooqui vs.Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 has held as under :
"14.............. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar
manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. As that is
where the status and strata of the husband becomes a prominent one.
As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the
parameters of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that
she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial
home........"
11. The respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant having
no independent source of income. She is dependent on her parents. The trial Court
has rightly awarded aforesaid maintenance amount in favour of the respondent
No.1. With regard to quantum of amount, there is no evidence on record to
establish the actual income of the applicant. Looking to the need of the
respondents, cost of essential commodities and expenses and hike inflation rate
and looking to the status of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court it is
appropriate to award an amount Rs.4000/- per month from the date of impugned
order i.e. 03.08.2021 to the respondent No.1 towards maintenance in place of
Rs.5000/- per month.
1 2 . Accordingly, the revision is party allowed. Impugned order dated
03.08.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in M.J.C.
No.189/2017 is hereby set aside. The applicant is directed to pay the respondent
No.1 a sum of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of impugned order i.e.
03.08.2021 towards maintenance in place of Rs.5000/- per month.
13. With the aforesaid direction, this criminal revision stands partly allowed
and disposed of.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
rj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Date: 2022.04.13 17:54:39 IST
