Manoj Malviya vs Smt. Saroj
2023 Latest Caselaw 22159 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoj Malviya vs Smt. Saroj on 22 December, 2023

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
                                             ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5930 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MANOJ MALVIYA S/O SHRI KUNWAR JI MALVIYA,
                           AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O
                           38/4 SHRI RAM COLONY YANTRA MAHAL MARG
                           UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                           (SHRI SIDHARTH CHHAJED, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT).

                           AND
                           SMT. SAROJ W/O MANOJ MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 47
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O 38/4 SHRIRAM
                           COLONY YANTRA MAHAL MARG UJJAIN (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

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

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2023, passed in MJCR No.240/2020, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent/wife from the date of application i.e. 06.10.2020.

2. Facts gathered from the present petition and impugned order in brief are that petitioner and respondent got married on 28.06.2010 at Ujjain. An application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent /wife on 01.10.2020 before the Family Court, Ujjain stating that petitioner/husband caused cruelty to her and had extra marital affairs and was negligent in maintaining her and she has no means to maintain herself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband replied that respondent/wife is an advocate and she belongs to upper caste and she is not willing to continue her married life with the petitioner/husband. He also alleged that respondent/wife is living an adulterous life. The income of the petitioner is

very low whereas respondent/wife has sufficient source of income to maintain herself. Respondent/wife has filed several cases against the petitioner to create undue pressure upon him.

Heard.

4. The trial Court recorded the findings that there are sufficient grounds for the respondent/wife to live separately and she is not able to maintain herself. The petitioner on the other hand earns Rs.20,000/- per month as working on the post of Security Guard Officer. Moreover, the petitioner/husband has other source of income as well.

5. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that the petitioner/husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and the factum of living separately without cause has not been considered properly, income of the respondent/wife has not been taken into consideration. Also, the petitioner/husband is willing to live un-conditionally

with respondent/wife.

6. In para 6 of the petition mentions that a case under Section 498-A of IPC is registered against petitioner/husband. In para 10 of Annexure P-4 i.e reply of application of respondent/wife charges of Adultery have been leveled on respondent/wife. These facts taken together does not call for any interference in the findings of Family Court, Ujjain that respondent/wife has sufficient cause to live separately. The fact that respondent/wife already knew the caste of petitioner/husband and despite this fact she got married to him, loses the relevance of allegations regarding caste bias on the part of respondent/wife. The amount of maintenance is just and proper and hence, does not call for any interference.

7. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is unfit to be admitted hence, it is dismissed at motion stage.

C.C as per Rules.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE akanksha