Bholu Alias Lalla Parmar vs Smt. Reshma Parmar (Bhadoriya)
2022 Latest Caselaw 3637 MP

                               1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         CRR-1095-2021
       Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

Gwalior, Dated : 15.03.2022

      Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Nirmal Sharma, Counsel for the respondent.

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has

been filed against order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.258/2018, by

which the application filed by the respondent for grant of interim

maintenance has been allowed and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per

month has been awarded by way of interim maintenance.

Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact, the respondent

was already married prior to her marriage with the applicant. She was

already blessed with a son, and she was living a life of adultery.

Marriage of the respondent with him was performed after keeping

him in dark. Interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- is on a

higher side. It is further submitted that in the light of the judgment

passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and

another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, respondent should have given

an affidavit disclosing her sources of income. She is teaching in

school namely Ebenezer, Higher Secondary School, Gwalior.

According to certificate issued by the Principal of the said school,

monthly salary of the respondent was Rs.8,000/- during academic

session 2016-17 and the respondent is also running dance classes and

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

she is earning handsome amount. The said fact has been suppressed.

Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the respondent. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the

respondent was already married prior to her marriage with the

applicant. The applicant is falsely projecting that the respondent is a

biological mother of a body where he is son of her sister. She is not

working anywhere. Respondent had agreed for DNA test as well as

forensic examination of the photographs, but the applicant himself is

not ready for the same, which clearly indicates that the photographs

which have been placed by the applicant are doctored photographs.

The applicant is in Army and his monthly income as per the salary

slip of the year 2019 is Rs.41,060/- and, therefore, interim

maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Trial Court

cannot be said to be on a higher side.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In order to adjudicate the controversy involved in the present

case, this Court would like to refer to certain order-sheets of the Trial

Court, which have been placed by the applicant himself along with

I.A. No.4530/2022. The orders dated 28.01.2021, 29.01.2021,

12.02.2021 and 17.02.2021 read as under:-

"28-01-2021 vkosfndk lfgr Jh iadt lDlsuk vf/koDrk mi0A vukosnd lfgr Jh losZ'k flag pkSgku vf/koDrk mi0A izdj.k vkt le>kSrk okrkZ gsrq fu;r gSA U;k;ky; }kjk iSuy ds ehfM;sVj ds LFkku ij fjdWkMZ ns[kdj rnuqlkj tkudkjh izkIr dj Jherh euh"kk vf/koDrk dks ehfM;sVj fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj mHk;i{k

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

dks muds ikl NksM+k x;kA Jherh euh"kk 'kqDyk us yxHkx 2 cts mifLFkr gksdj crk;k fd mHk;i{k ds e/; tks fookn gS og fuiV ldrs gS] ijarq mles dqN 'krsaZ gSA U;k;ky; }kjk mUgsa funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd os viuh ,d ehfM;s'ku fjiksVZ cukdj U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsaA rc ,d ehfM;s'ku fjiksVZ U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr gqbZA bl ehfM;s'ku fjiksVZ esa Qksjasfld tkWap ds fy, Hkh fuosnu fd;k x;k gS ftlij mHk;i{k lger gSA vr% vf/koDrk dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og vukosnd i{k ls laiw.kZ nLrkost izkIr djs ,d fof/kor~ vkosnu cuk;sa vkSj mls U;k;ky; ds le{k fof/kor~ izLrqr djsa rc U;k;ky; }kjk vkxs vkns'k fn;k tk;sxkA mijksDr ds vykok js'kek ijekj dh esfMdy fjiksVZ ds laca/k es Hkh lgefr izkIr gqbZ gSA vr% dy fnukad dks mHk;i{k MkWa0 dk uke Li"V djrs gq, vkosnu izLrqr djsaxsa rkfd U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk ldsaA mijksDr ds vykok ;g idj.k /kkjk 125 na- iz- la- ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj vkosfndk dh izkFkZuk gS fd mls vkt fnukad rd u rks dksbZ vkns'k izkIr gqvk gS vkSj u gh dksbZ jkf'k izkIr gqbZ gSA mldk le;

cMs d"V ls xqtj jgk gSA vr% igys Hkj.k iks"k.k jkf'k fnyk;h tkosaA U;k;ky; }kjk vukosnd ls dgk x;k fd og LosPN;k ls fdruh jkf'k vnk dj ldrs gS bl ij mHk;i{k esa [khprku ds ckn 10][email protected]& :i;s dy fnukad dks nsuk r; gqvkA vr% orZeku izdj.k esa dy dh is'kh yxk;h tkosA izdj.k dy fnukad 29-01-2021 dks is'k gksA

¼HkwisUnz dqekj flag½ vfrfjDr iz/kku U;k;k/kh'k

29-01-2021 vkosfndk lfgr Jh iadt lDlsuk vf/koDrk mi0A vukosnd lfgr Jh losZ'k flag pkSgku vf/koDrk mi0A vkt lqcg 11%30 cts vkosfndk U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gqbZ vkSj vukosnd Hkh ckn esa mifLFkr gqvkA U;k;ky; us vkosfndk ls iwNk fd D;k og ehfM;s'ku fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj viuh esfMdy tkWp djokus ds fy, rS;kj gS rks mlus lgefr O;Dr dhA rc U;k;ky; }kjk fof/kor~ MkWa- izhfr xqIrk dks i= tkjh fd;k x;k vkSj vius LVkQ MªkbZoj j?kqjkt /kkdM+ ds lkFk nksauksa i{kksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k fd og viuh lqfo/kk ls vkyksd uflZx gkse pys tk;sa vkSj ogka ls esfMdy ijh{k.k djkdj fjiksVZ izkIr dj U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksaA MªkbZoj Jh j?kqjkt flag us dbZ ckj U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj dgk fd vukosnd i{k dgha Hkh fn[kkbZ ughaa ns jgk gS vkSj U;k;ky; NksM+dj dgha pyk x;k gS rc U;k;ky; }kjk dbZ ckj iqdkj yxok;h x;hA 01%40 cts vukosnd vius vf/koDrk ds lkFk U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr gqvk vkSj mlus vkosfndk dks vius lkFk j[kus ls iwjh rjg vLohdkj djrs gq, dg fd ;g nwljs O;fDr lanhi dh iRuh gS

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

blfy, eSa bls ugha j[kwaxkA esjs }kjk mUgs ;kn fnyk;k x;k fd dy ehfM;s'ku ds nkSjku nksuksa i{kksa us lgefr O;Dr dh gS fd ;fn vkosfndk esfMdy ijh{k.k esa u rks xHkZorh ik;h tkrh gS vkSj u gh iwoZ esa mlds }kjk dksbZ fMfyojh djk;h x;h ,slk ik;k tkrk gS rFkk tks QksVks bR;kfn vkosnd ds ikl gSa mUgsa izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mudk ijh{k.k djus esa mUgsa QthZ ik;k tkrk gS rks vkosfndk dks mlds llqjky okys vukosnd vius lkFk ys tkus dks lger gksaxsa ,slk ;kn fnykus ij Hkh vkt vkosnd blds fy, rS;kj ugha gSA vr% bl laca/k esa vo/kkj.kk vukosnd ds fo:} dh tkrh gSA bl laca/k es U;k;ky; }kjk mfpr le; ij bl vo/kkj.kk dk mi;ksx dj vius fu"d"kZ fudkysxkA mDr i= orZeku izdj.k esa layXu fd;s x;sA vkt fnukad dks vukosnd us mifLFkr gksdj varfje Hkj.k iks"k.k vkosnu dk tokc is'k fd;k blds lkFk gh ehfM;s'ku fjiksVZ esa crk;s x;s lHkh nl QksVks izLrqr fd;s x;sa vkSj vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k fd budh fof/kor~ tkWap djk;h tkosaA nksuks dh izfr;ka vkosnd ds vf/koDrk }kjk izkIr dh x;ha rFkk bl vkosnu dk mRrj izLrqr djuk fuosfnr fd;k x;kA varfje Hkj.k iks"k.k vkosnu ij mHk;i{k dks lquk x;kA izdj.k varfje Hkj.k iks"k.k ds vkosnu ij fof/kor~ vkns'k gsrq ,oa vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa tkWp djk;s tkus ckor~ vkosnu ds mRrj gsrq fnukad 12-02-2021 dks is'k gksA

12-02-2021 vkosfndk js'kek ijekj dh vksj ls vkosnu /kkjk 13 dqVqEc U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr e; vfHkHkk"kd i= ds izLrqr dj Jh Mh-vkj-JhokLro ,oa muds lg;ksxh vf/koDrkx.k dks iSjch gsrq fu;qDr djus dh vuqefr pkgh gSA vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k x;kA okn fopkj vkosnu bl funsZ'k ds lkFk Lohdkj tkrk gS fd vf/koDrkx.k ijke'kZ dk;Zokgh ds le; mifLFkr ugha jgsxsa vkSj u gh ijke'kZ dk;Zokgh esa gLr{ksi djsxsaA bl funsZ'k ds lkFk vkosfndk dh vksj ls Jh Mh-vkj-JhokLro ,oa muds lg;ksxh vf/koDrkx.k dks izdj.k esa iSjoh djus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gS] vfHkHkk"kd i= vfHkys[k ij fy;k tkrk gSA is'kh iwoZor fnukad 17-02-2021 dks is'k gksA

¼HkwisUnz dqekj flag½ vfrfjDr iz/kku U;k;k/kh'k dqVqEc U;k;ky; Xokfy;j

17-02-2021 vkosfndk lfgr Jh Mh-vkj-JhokLro vf/koDrk mi0A vukosnd }kjk Jh losZ'k flga pkSgku vf/koDrk mi0A izdj.k U;kf;d foKku iz;ksx'kkyk esa QksVks tkWp gsrq Hksts tkus ds fy, fu;r gSA vkosfndk dk dguk gS fd igys vukosnd ;g Li"V djs fd ;fn QksVks QthZ ik;s tkrs gS rks mls vius lkFk ys tk;saxs vkSj mlds ckn gh ;g QksVks tkWp ds fy, Hksts tkosaA vkosfndk us ;g Hkh

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

crk;k gS fd og vius llqj bUnziky flag ds lkFk vukosnd dh ;wfuV esa if'pe caxky x;h Fkh ogka ij Hkh mlus rRdkyhu lh vks ds le{k ;g dgk Fkk fd og rqjar tkWp djkus dks rS;kj gS ijUrq u rks vukosnd rS;kj gqvk vkSj u gh mlds llqj rS;kj gq, ,sls esa vc tc rd vukosnd ;g ekuus dks rS;kj ugha gksxk fd QksVks QthZ ik;s tkus ij og lkFk ys tk;sxk rc rd ;g QksVks tkWp ds fy, u Hksts tkosaA U;k;ky; }kjk vukosnd ds vf/koDrk ls iwNrkN dh x;h rFkk bUnziky flag tks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa muls Hkh iwNrkN dh x;h ijarq nksuksa us gh tokc ugha fn;kA ,sls esa U;k;ky; ds er esa ;g QksVks tkWp ds fy, tkuk vuko';d gSA vr% rnuqlkj QksVks ugha Hksts tk jgs gSaA U;k;ky; ds er esa orZeku izdj.k esa ,d ckj vkSj dkmalfyax dh vko';drk gS rkfd laiw.kZ fookn dks fuiVk;k tk lds vr% vxyh rkjh[k dkmalfyax ds fy, fu;r dh tkrh gSA izdj.k le>kSrkokrkZ gsrq fnukad 25-02-2021 dks is'k gksA

¼HkwisUnz dqekj flag½ vfrfjDr iz/kku U;k;k/kh'k dqVqEc U;k;ky;] Xokfy;j^^ First objection of the applicant is that the respondent was

already married even prior to her marriage with the applicant and to

support his contention, he has relied upon certain photographs. From

the above-mentioned order-sheets, it is clear that the respondent was

ready for forensic examination of the photographs, but it was the

applicant who did not agree for the same. Similarly, respondent was

also ready for her medical examination, but from the order dated

29.01.2021, it is clear that the applicant did not appear before the

Court and also did not go to Alok Nursing Home for medical

examination. Thus, it is clear that the allegations which have been

levelled by applicant against the respondent appears to be false, and

even, the Trial Court has already drawn an adverse inference against

the applicant due to the somersault taken by him. Making a false

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

allegation against the spouse itself amounts to cruelty.

So far as the school certificate filed by the applicant to show

that the monthly salary of the respondent during the academic session

2016-2017 was Rs.8,000/- per month is concerned, it is suffice to

mention here that the application under Section 125 of CrPC was

filed on 21.08.2018, whereas the applicant has filed certificate of the

concerning school of the academic session 2016-2017. No

explanation has been given by the applicant as to why he did not

obtain certificate from the school for the academic session 2018-19 or

2017-18. Thus, it is clear that even the applicant is aware of the fact

that the respondent was not working on the day when the application

under Section 125 of CrPC was filed.

So far as the question of running dance classes is concerned,

the applicant has merely filed a pamphlet which cannot be taken as a

conclusive evidence to show that the respondent is running dance

classes, specifically, when the applicant himself did not agree for

forensic examination of the photographs as well as medical

examination.

It is next contended by the Counsel for the applicant that since,

the take home salary of the applicant is only 24576/- therefore, the

interim maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 per month is on a higher

side.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

applicant.

The applicant has placed the copy of the salary slip of

December 2019. It is clear that all the deductions are not statutory

deductions. The deduction of Rs. 13000/- under the head of AFPP ss

a voluntary deduction and if the applicant is contributing Rs. 13000/-

per month under the head of AFPP, then the said amount was chosen

by the applicant himself and the said amount is not minimum

statutory contribution. Similarly, the deductions under the heads

AGIF, E-Ticketing cannot be said to be statutory deductions. In fact

all the deductions are voluntary and it would remain the income of the

applicant. While calculating the take home salary, only the statutory

deductions can be taken into consideration and not voluntary

deductions. The Counsel for the applicant could not justify as to how

the deductions from the salary of the applicant are statutory in nature.

Therefore, the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month

awarded by the Court below cannot be said to be on higher side.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no

case is made out warranting interference in the impugned order dated

12.02.2021.

The revision fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of

Rs.20,000/- payable to the respondent towards litigation expenses of

this criminal revision.

Cost be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1095-2021 Bholu alias Lalla Parmar Vs. Smt. Reshma Parmar

period of 15 days from today, failing which the Principal Registrar of

this Court is directed to register a case for Contempt of Court.

Furthermore, if the cost is not deposited within a period of 15 days,

then the Trial Court shall struck of the defence of the applicant. After

the cost is deposited, it shall be paid to the respondent, on an

application made by her. The applicant is directed to submit the

receipt of deposit of cost before the Trial Court by 4th of April 2022.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.03.21 10:33:51 +05'30'