Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mamta @ Dimple vs Manish on 22 August, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4004 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
MAMTA @ DIMPLE W/O MANISH
BAGGA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE SHANKAR
NATH BUILDING, RANI SATI GATE, Y.N.
ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SULABH SAMAIYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
MANISH S/O GURUCHARAN BAGGA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS DASHPUR KUNJ ROAD,
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA, ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3357 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
MANISH S/O GURUCHARAN BAGGA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS DASHPURKUNJ ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA, ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
2
MAMTA @ DIMPLE W/O MANISHA
BAGGA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
SHANKARNATH BUILDING RANI SATI
GATE Y.N. ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SULABH SAMAIYA, ADVOCATE)
Reserved : 11.08.2023
Delivered : 22.08.2023
These revisions coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Since both criminal revisions have been preferred under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against the order dated
25.05.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 620/2014
by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Indore (M.P.), both the Criminal Revisions are being heard and
decided by this common order analogously.
2. In this case, the learned Family Court has prima-facie
examined the pleadings as well as the evidence came on record
and decided the application of petitioner-Mamta @ Dimple and
adjudicated that she is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- per month as
maintenance from her husband namely-Manish. Further, the wife-
Mamta @ Dimple will be addressed as petitioner while husband-
Manish will be addressed as respondent in the following
paragraphs of this order.
3. The Criminal Revision No. 4004/2019 has been filed by
Mamta @ Dimple/petitioner for enhancement of maintenance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
amount from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- as the maintenance
awarded by the learned trial Court, on the ground that the same is
on the lower side as compared to the income of the husband and
maintenance amount be granted from the date of filing of the
application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. While the Criminal
Revision No. 3357/2019 has been filed by Manish/respondent
being dissatisfied with the amount of maintenance as on higher
side and set aside the impugned order.
4. Regarding these revision petitions, it is undisputed fact
that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 28.11.2000.
5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-wife, submits
that looking to the income sources of the respondent/husband, the
amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance, is on the lower side. The
standard of living of the deserted wife should be at par with the
standard of living of the husband, hence she entitled to get the
maintenance according to the income of the husband.
6. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in
Para 45 of the judgment, the learned trial Court, relied upon the
judgment rendered in Jai Kumar Meena Vs. Smt. Radha Meena
[(2017) Cr.Law Journal 3166] in which there is specific order
that the maintenance be given from the date of application.
Hon'ble High Court has upheld the said findings stating that the
provisions of 127 of Cr.P.C. be read as mentioned 125(2) of
Cr.P.C., wherein there is no order that the maintenance be given
from the date of filing of application or from the date of passing
of the order, it can be decided only on the basis of circumstances,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
therefore, the petitioner was awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
per month from the date of order which should be from the date
of filing of the application.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the petitioner was granted a sum of
Rs.8,000/- as maintenance vide order dated 02.02.2008 passed in
MJC No. 309/2005. The same was challenged by the respondent
as Criminal Revision No. 254/2008, in which order dated
15.07.2009 was passed and matter was remanded back to the
learned Family Court to re-decide the matter after taking evidence
of both parties and also awarded interim maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.09.2010,
learned trial Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance. Further,
the petitioner has filed an application under Section 127 of
Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount and vide order
dated 25.05.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Indore has awarded Rs.15,000/- as
maintenance to the petitioner by the respondent against which this
revision has been filed by husband also.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn
attention of this Court of the order-sheet dated 20.03.2015 of the
learned trial Court, in which, the petitioner has clearly stated that
"mls U;k;ky; ls U;k; feyus esa fo'okl ugha gS- " It is also contended that
an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of
maintenance has been filed by the petitioner without any change
in circumstances of the case, which is against the law as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
prescribed as it can be filed only when the circumstances are
changed from the date of order of the trial Court. Learned counsel
for the respondent/husband submits that the learned trial Court
has wrongly awarded the maintenance in favour of the wife
without considering the evidence available on record. It is further
submitted that the wife has completely failed to prove the income
of the husband before the trial Court, but even after such fact, the
learned Court has awarded the maintenance in favour of wife. It is
further submitted that in the application, she has only prayed for
Rs.10000/- per month while the Court has wrongly awarded
Rs,.15000/- per month. The learned trial court has completely
overlooked the earlier findings of the Court below when the
interim maintenance was awarded in favour of the wife only
Rs.3000/- per month. It is further submitted that the wife is
having own properties and five bank accounts and FDs in her
name and she herself is having sufficient means of source of
income. Hence, the present Criminal Revision filed by the
respondent/husband be allowed and the impugned judgment dated
25.05.2019 be modified. Further, in support of his contention,
counsel for the husband has also placed reliance upon the
judgment of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Others [(2021 2 SCC 324] and
submitted that the petitioner/wife has not filed proper details of
income in compliance of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court.
9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. From the face of record, it is revealed that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
respondent and his family are connected with mining business
and he has also other sources of income. The document (Exhibit-
P//1) is the renewal certificate, issued by In-charge Officer of
Mining Department in favour of respondent. On this aspect on
behalf of respondent, it is submitted by filing of an affidavit
(Exhibit-D/5) of Suresh (Uncle of the respondent), but on the
basis of such affidavit, ownership of land and mining rights
cannot be transferred. In this way, the learned trial Court having
considered each and every aspect of the matter after discussion of
sources of income of both parties, passed the final judgment.
Thereafter it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has
wrongly passed the impugned judgment in favour of wife whiling
granting maintenance.
11. In so far as, the submissions of respondent/husband that
without any change in circumstances, the petition under Section
127 of Cr.P.C. cannot be filed within one year from the date of
order of Hon'ble High Court passed on 13.09.2013. At this point,
it is relevant that the original order of the learned trial Court was
delivered on 29.09.2010. Certainly the adjudication of this Court
came on 13.09.2013 but still on this ground, the maintainability
of the petition cannot be disputed. Nevertheless, the petition was
filed within a short span of one year i.e. on 26.04.2014 from final
adjudication of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, passed on
13.09.2013, but still it was decided by the learned trial Court on
25.05.2019 that means, after more then five years and order of
enhancement amount was effectuated only from the date of order
rather than from the date of filing of application. It is settled
principle of law that at any stage, the application under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
127 of Cr.P.C. is well maintainable and any aggrieved party can
knock the portal of the trial Court at any point of time in this
regard. Therefore, this argument of counsel for the
respondent/husband is having no force, hence, discarded.
12. Further, in view of the impugned order, it is crystal
clear that the respondent/husband is living in his life style and
maintaining the standards, therefore, as per the settled provisions
of law, the wife is certainly entitled to live her life as per the
standards of her husband. On this aspect, it is asserted in
Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse [AIR (2014) SCW
256], the purposive interpretation needs to be given to provision
of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is bounden duty of Courts to
advance cause of social justice. It is time honourned principal that
the wife is entitled to a financial status equivalent to that of the
husband. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the test is whether the wife is
in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to live
with her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83)
it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain
standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but
what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable
to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be
absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C."
13. At this juncture, the following excerpts of Rajnesh Vs.
Neha and Ors. (Supra) is reproduced below :-
The test for determination of
maintenance in matrimonial disputes
depends on the financial status of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
respondent, and the standard of living
that the applicant was accustomed to
in her matrimonial home.
The maintenance amount awarded
must be reasonable and realistic, and
avoid either of the two extremes i.e.
maintenance awarded to the wife
should neither be so extravagant
which becomes oppressive and
unbearable for the respondent, nor
should it be so meagre that it drives
the wife to penury. The sufficiency of
the quantum has to be adjudged so
that the wife is able to maintain herself
with reasonable comfort.
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and settled position of law, the learned trial Court
has not committed any error while considering the socio-
economic standard of wife as per the standard of her husband.
Hence, the revision petition filed by the husband/respondent is
having no merits and is hereby dismissed.
15. Now, turning to the contentions of wife's petition
Criminal Revision No. 4004/2019, learned counsel for the
petitioner relying upon judgment Jai Kumar Meena (supra)
submitted that date of maintenance should be the date of filing of
application. Here, it is poignant to point out that this petition was
filed for enhancement of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/- on 26.06.2014.
However, on the basis of evidence and other circumstances,
learned trial Court has awarded the amount of maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month subject to adjusting the maintenance
amount awarded in other proceedings in view of law laid down in
the case of Sandeep Choudhary Vs. Radha Choudhary [AIR
(1999) SC 536], learned trial Court having considered the view
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
expressed in Jai Kumar Meena (supra), used his discretion in
proper prospective in order to balance the claim and rights of both
parties. Therefore, the view of learned trial Court regarding the
date of maintenance as date of order has no infirmity and
accordingly, no interference is warranted.
15. So far as the criminal revision filed regarding
enhancement of the maintenance amount is concerned, the
learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the income of the
husband/respondent and awarded the maintenance in accordance
with law after following the due ratio which is normally required
to be considered by the Courts at the time of passing the orders of
maintenance. Hence, the revision petition filed on behalf of
petitioner-wife is also having no merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
16. In view of the aforesaid, both the petitions filed on
behalf of husband as well as on behalf of wife, are dismissed.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below
concerned for information.
18. A copy of this order be placed in the record of CRR No.
3357/2019.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
vindesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 22-08-2023
10:04:23
