Smt. Sanchita @ Tina Medava vs Anil Mevada
2023 Latest Caselaw 7022 MP

                                                                       1
                                       IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                                     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                                                             ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2023
                                                      CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1625 of 2022

                                      BETWEEN:-
                                      SMT. SANCHITA @ TINA MEDAVA W/O SHRI ANIL
                                      MEVADA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                      STUDENT R/O FLAT NO. 103, KHUSHI APARTMENT
                                      DANISH KUNJ, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                      PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....APPLICANT
                                      (BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                                      AND
                                      ANIL MEVADA S/O LAKHAN MEVADA, AGED ABOUT 33
                                      YEAR S , R/O PATEL COLONY, NEAR LURD MATA
                                      SCHOOL, BADIYAA KHEDI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                      SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
                                      (BY SHRI JAGAT SINGH - ADVOCATE )
                                      ________________________________________________________________
                                                      Reserved on       :   1.4.2023
                                                      Pronounced on    :    1.5.2023
                                      ________________________________________________________________

                                            This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
                                      pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
                                                                        ORDER

1. This revision has been filed by the applicant/wife being aggrieved by order (Annexure A-1) dated 28.3.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Co urt, Sehore in MJC/R/101/2021 whereby the application filed by the Signature Not Verified SAN applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance has been

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.05.02 11:01:29 IST dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 8.8.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals and they do not have any issue out of their wedlock. It was a love marriage, which the relatives of the applicant attended but the family members of the respondent refused to attend. After their marriage, the respondent took the applicant to his house at Sehore where the parents of the respondent refused to accept the applicant and asked them to live separately on a rented house. After sometime, the applicant and the respondents started visiting their parental house. The behaviour of in-laws of applicant towards the applicant was not good. They started interfering in their married life and used to

s a y that they will perform re-marriage of the respondent. Piqued by the behaviour of her in-laws, the applicant and the respondent started living separately since the year 2011. Thereafter, the applicant lodged a report, on the basis of which a case under Section 498-A of IPC was registered against the respondent and his family members, wherein the applicant could not prove her case.

3. In the year 2017, the applicant and the respondent against started visiting to each other. The applicant started prosecuting her studies again and her all expenses were incurred by the respondent. In the year 2018, the applicant and the respondent against started living together with the condition that the respondent would reside with the applicant for 8-10 days every month and for rest of the days, he would reside with his parents. They resided for about 3 years in such arrangement. When the parents of the respondent came to know

Signature Not Verified SAN about the aforesaid fact, they took the respondent with them to Sehore. When

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE the applicant went to her matrimonial house at Sehore, the respondent and his Date: 2023.05.02 11:01:29 IST

family members thrashed and driven her away. At that time, the applicant came

to know that the respondent has performed remarriage with one Asha.

4. The applicant filed an application before the Family Court claiming maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- claiming that the respondent is running a Travel Agency, from which he earns about Rs.1.50-2 Lakh per month. The respondent is having his own house and also having 8 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns Rs. 5 Lakh per annum.

5. The respondent filed his reply stating that neither he has performed marriage with the applicant nor he ever lived with her. The applicant lodged false report against him and his family members, therefore the Court has acquitted them in the said case. The respondent is having only one Toofan Cruiser, which has been financed by Chola Mandalam Finance Company. It is further averred that his one vehicle has been stolen and the respondent and his family members are not in possession of the land as in respect of the said land, the litigation is pending. It was also submitted that the applicant is a law graduate and also engaged in construction work at Bhopal. Earlier she used to falsely implicate several persons in the case under Section 376 of IPC and by blackmailing them she used to receive a huge amount.

6. Learned Court below after considering that the applicant earlier filed a case against one Nafees Khan under Section 376 of IPC and also considered that some negotiations were going on for her marriage with one Govind Singh

R/o Patiala. The applicant admitted that she also lodged FIR against Govind Singh under Section 376 of IPC. In para-20 of the impugned judgment, the Court observed that there was love marriage of the applicant and the Signature Not Verified SAN respondent. In the year 2011, the applicant lodged a report under Section 498-A Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.05.02 11:01:29 IST of IPC. The offence was not found to be proved by the trial Court, therefore,

the applicant and his family members were acquitted in the said case. The Court below also found that the applicant is residing separately from the respondent without any sufficient or proper reason willfully and living in adultery, hence rejected her application, therefore, drawing adverse inference against the applicant, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

7. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the applicant on the ground that the Court below committed error by recording adverse finding against the applicant. The order has been passed in hasty manner by ignoring statement of the applicant without considering that the respondent has failed to prove adultery against her. They were living together for about 2 years and this material fact was ignored by the Court below, hence the impugned order may be set aside and the respondent may be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the applicant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the statement dated 4.2.2022, the applicant admitted that in the case registered by her under Section 498-A of IPC, she had failed to prove the offence against the respondent. No marriage card or photographs have been produced by the applicant nor any details of marriage have been provided as to when and at which place their marriage was solemnized. She further admitted in her cross-examination Para 10 that she lodged the FIR against one Nafees Khan on 27.9.2016 under Section 376 of IPC. Again she lodged the FIR against Govind Singh under Section 376 of IPC. From her evidence, it is not proved that she is the legally wedded wife of Signature Not Verified SAN

the respondent residing separately from the respondent for proper and Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.05.02 11:01:29 IST

satisfactory reason. In the complaint lodged by her against Govind Singh on

27.9.2016 she has mentioned her name as Sanchita Joshi D/o Tikamchand Joshi . Her statement was recorded before the trial Court on 30.10.2018 regarding the complaint lodged by her against Govind Singh, she mentioned her name as Sanchita Joshi D/o Tikamchand Joshi. All these facts are against the applicant.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the statement of the respondent that the applicant is not his legally wedded wife, seems to be trustworthy. Although the trial Court has observed that love marriage was performed between the applicant and the respondent but I, do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding given by the trial Court that the applicant is residing separately from the respondent without any proper reason on her own will in adultery. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant seeking maintenance.

10. Accordingly, this revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE PB

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2023.05.02 11:01:29 IST