Smt. Sunita @ Babli vs Nilesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12227 MP

                                                               1
                            IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                  ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1835 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SMT. SUNITA @ BABLI W/O NILESH CHOUHAN, AGED
                           ABOUT 25 YEARS, 134, RAMKRISHNA BAG, BEHIND
                           VELLOCITY, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI NITIN SINGH BHATI, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           NILESH S/O HARERAM CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 27
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS VILLAGE BAKTARA,
                           DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           (NONE)

                                 T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of

Family Court Act being aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2018, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, in MJCR No.1103/2014, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance and awarded Rs.4000/- per month in favour of the petitioner/wife.

2. Before considering the matter, it is worth mentioning that no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent even after being noticed on 25.06.2018,

Signature Not Verified therefore, this revision petition is heard in absence of counsel for the Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 02-08-2023 18:05:21

respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is a clear evidenc e against the respondent for causing cruelty to applicant. The respondent used to harass the applicant and she was subjected to cruelty for dowry for which she has lodged an FIR against her in-laws and respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent is having shop as well as 9 acres of agriculture land, but even then he is neglecting his wife i.e. applicant and not paying the maintenance amount so awarded by learned Family Court. The learned Family court has not considered the income of the respondent/husband in its right perspective even after considering the fact that the respondent is

having income from various sources including the agriculture land and shop. It is further submitted that the proof regarding the income of respondent has not been considered in accordance with law and the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order ignoring the income of the respondent. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner prays for enhancement of maintenance amount.

4. No one is present on behalf of respondent on earlier occasions i.e. 14.10.2022, 25.11.2022, 30.06.2023 and today also no one is present on behalf of respondent.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. In this regard, the judgment of this Court, the case of Manubai Vs. Sukhdeo, 1990 CrLJ 646 is worth referring in which it is held that in order to prove that the husband refused and neglected to maintain his wife, she is not required to prove elaborate evidence. It is sufficient to establish the circumstances from which prima facie case of her husband refusing and neglecting to maintain her wife can be established. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 02-08-2023 18:05:21

7. In view of aforesaid principles, it is evinced that the respondent himself has neglected his wife. Therefore, order of learned Family Court regarding regarding interim maintenance is liable to be and is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay Rs.5000/- per month in place of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of the application.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is partly allowed to the extent as mentioned in aforesaid paragraph.

10. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach before the appropriate Court by way of filing appropriate application for execution proceedings, if the respondent fails to comply with this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned family Court concerned for information.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Vindesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 02-08-2023 18:05:21