Aditya Sengar vs Smt. Shubhangi Bhadoriya
2023 Latest Caselaw 13288 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                      ON THE 16 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8780 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
ADITYA SENGAR S/O SHRI SHIVRAJ SINGH SENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED,
AT PRESENT R/O DHANAI BAZAR NEAR KARAS DEV
TEMPLE, GURSARAI, TEHSIL GAROTHA, DISTRICT
JHANSI (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHFAQ KHAN - ADVOCATE )

AND
SMT. SHUBHANGI BHADORIYA D/O SHRI ROOP SINGH
BHADORIYA, R/O AT PRESENT- 3847 NEW RAMVIHAR
COLONY GOLA KA MANDIR P.S. GOLA KA MANDIR,
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RBS TOMAR - ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 24/11/2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No. 118/2019 (MJC); whereby, the application filed by petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance impersonating herself as a deserted wife of the petitioner and therefore, petitioner is under the

obligation to maintain her, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 1 lac per month. Petitioner filed reply to the application denying all allegations made by the wife and further pleaded that respondent/wife is a working woman and earns a handsome amount as an employee of IT company and further she has regular income through mutual fund and other investments; whereas, petitioner is presently unemployed and is not earning anymore. thereafter petitioner moved an application under RTI Act in response whereof the Department of Labour and Employment of Government of India informed him that respondent's basis salary was Rs. 25,909/- in between Feb. 2021 to Oct. 2021 and she continued to be a salaried person. Thereafter, petitioner submitted all these documents

before the trial Court including the Annual Income Statement of the petitioner himself for due consideration alongwith an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for calling the record of AIS of respondent wife from the department of Income Tax, Gwalior. Respondent/wife responded to said application and prayed for rejection of the same. Trial Court by impugned order rejected the said application, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that trial Court erred in dismissing his application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. as trial Court failed to consider the basis intention behind enactment of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is "if a person having sufficient means fefuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, than the magistrate may order such person to make a monhly allowance for the maintenance of his wife." And since the RTI obtained by petitioner it is clear that respondent/wife is a working woman earning regularly, trial Court have to call for AIS of the respondent looking to the fact that respondent/wife never denied that she is not a working woman and has no source of income. Trial Court further erred in holding that

respondent on her own can produce the evidence of income in support of her pleadings. In support of his contentions, he relied upon decision of Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath, (2005) 1 SCC 568, Varsha Garg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1021/2022 decided on 8/8/2022) and decision of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. Vasudev and Anr. (MCRC No. 37462/2022 decided on 23/6/2023).

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposed the prayer and argued in support of impugned order.

Heard.

From perusal of impugned order it appears that by passing a detailed and reasoned order, trial Court rejected the application of petitioner while holding specifically that since petitioner already produce documents regarding income of the respondent/wife and therefore, there is no necessity to call for such documents and petitioner can produced and prove such documents in his evidence, therefore, in the opinion of this Court trial Court did not err in passing the impugned order.

In view of the order passed by trial Court, in the opinion of this court when trial Court itself hold that petitioner can produce and prove the documents obtained by him under RTI, then the judgments cited by learned counsel for the

petitioner move in different factual realm and are of no help to him.

Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or irregularity. Accordingly petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Petitioner shall be at liberty to produce and prove such documents in his evidence as per decision of trial Court.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

PRAKASH 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4 cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780 D8357, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01

SOLANKI 433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.08.18 15:41:03 +05'30'