Smt. Kavita Lakhera vs Nirmal Lakhera
2022 Latest Caselaw 14145 MP

                                                            1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                 ON THE 2nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4372 of 2019

                                   BETWEEN:-
                           1.      SMT. KAVITA LAKHERA W/O NIRMAL
                                   LAKHERA,   AGED   ABOUT   25  YEARS,
                                   OCCUPATION: NONE R/O CHANDA GOSWAMI
                                   SADAN, NALCHA MATA MANDIR ROAD,
                                   MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      LAKSHITA LAKHERA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
                                   THROUGH    SMT.  KAVITA LAKHERA W/O
                                   NIRMAL LAKHERA R/O CHANDA GOSWAMI
                                   SADAN,    NALCHA    MATA     MANDIR
                                   ROAD,MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                                   (SHRI GAURAV PANCHAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                                   PETITIONER )

                                   AND
                                   NIRMAL    LAKHERA   S/O   BHAGWATILAL
                                   LAKHERA,    AGED   ABOUT    26   YEARS,
                                   OCCUPATION:   BANGLE    BUSINESS,   R/O
                                   VILLAGE    KUCHDOD,   TEHSIL   JEERAN,
                                   DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                                   (NONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT, THOUGH SERVED)

                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:


                                                             ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.is preferred against the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Neemuch in Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 03-11-2022 15:09:18

M.Cr.C.No.83/2018 whereby an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner no.1 has been rejected and the learned Family Court has awarded Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to petitioner no.2.

The brief facts of the case are that admittedly, petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are the wife and daughter of respondent/husband. The petitioner no.1 and respondent was married on 30.01.2015 and out of the wedlock, petitioner no.2-daughter was born. The petitioner no.1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court claiming Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- per month for daughter respectively.

It is undisputed that respondent had filed a civil suit under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act and in this civil suit on 06.02.2018 after conciliation proceedings petitioner no.1 became ready to live with the respondent/husband and respondent/husband will take a house on rent at Neemuch for petitioners and he will maintain them. On 23.03.2018, petitioner no.1/wife filed an application (Ex.P-2) before the Superintendent of Police, Neemuch regarding harassment and cruelty caused by respondent/husband. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of both the parties has partly allowed the application of petitioner no.1/wife by awarding Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to petitioner no.2/daughter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has erred in reaching to a conclusion that petitioner no.1/wife is living separately from respondent/husband without sufficient /reasonable cause. It is also submitted that petitioner no.1 has proved that due to cruelty caused by the respondent/husband, she had to live separately. It is also submitted that respondent/husband has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. The petitioner no.1 in her statement clearly stated that respondent/husband is earning Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 03-11-2022 15:09:18

Rs.20,000/- per month by business of lac bangles and also irrigates five and a half Bighas of agricultural land. This fact has also not been denied by the respondent/husband that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is also submitted that in the case of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the respondent/husband had settled the matter only to avoid payment of interim maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month as directed by the Family court vide order dated 10.01.2018 (Ex.P-1). Hence, prays that the impugned order be set aside and to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs.10,000/- for petitioner no.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- for petitioner no.2/daughter. To support his contentions learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sunita Kachwaha and Others Vs. Anil Kachwaha AIR 2015 SC 554, Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and Others (2015) 6 SCC 353 and order of this Court in the case of Shilabai(Smt.) and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Patel ILR(2014) MP 832.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

On perusal of the record it is evident that after settlement in Hindu Marriage Act case petitioner no.1/wife had gone to live with the respondent/husband but after almost one and a half month on 23.03.2018, the petitioner no.1/wife had field a complaint before the Superintendent of Police,

Neemuch stating all the facts. It is also evident that after six months of marriage, petitioner no.1/wife was living in her parental house and even the delivery of the daughter took place in her parental house. Petitioner no.1/wife has admitted in her cross examination that as per the customs, delivery of daughter had taken place in the paternal house.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 03-11-2022 15:09:18

On perusal of the evidence brought on record it is clear that all the disputes were settled between the petitioner no.1/wife and respondent/husband and the respondent/husband clearly stated before the Family Court in his statement that after some time of marriage petitioner no.1/wife started quarrel stating to live separately from her matrimonial house and it is also stated that she used to call her father and often left for parental house. These facts are not specifically denied by the petitioner no.1/wife. It is also pertinent to mention that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was not filed till filing of the civil suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. No complaint has been filed by the petitioner no.1/wife against the respondent/husband. In the impugned order in paragraphs no.13, 14 and 15 the learned Family Court have given findings after detailed discussions that petitioner no.1/wife was living separately from respondent/husband without any sufficient/reasonable cause.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, this criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioners is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2019 is modified to the extent that the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioner no.2/daughter is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,000/- from the date of the order.

With the aforesaid modification, this criminal revision stands disposed off.

A copy of this order be sent to the Family Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE RJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 03-11-2022 15:09:18

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 03-11-2022 15:09:18