Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajni Parashar vs Satish Parashar on 30 October, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION No.3476 OF 2021
BETWEEN:-
1.SMT.RAJANI PARASAR W/O SHRI SATISH
PARASHAR, D/O SHRI VASUDEV TIWARI AGED 52
YEARS, OCCUPATION- HOUSEWIFE, R/O SMT. KIRTI
DWIVEDI KA MAKAN 30- SINDHI COLONY, KAMPOO
KE PASS, LASHKAR GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVI DIWVEDI- ADVOCATE)
AND
SATISH PARASHAR S/O SHRI L.N. PARASHAR, AGED
55 YEARS, OCCUAPTION PROPERTY DEALER, R/O
TH
ES
VIMAKUNJ, KOLAR ROAD SECTOR-C, HOUSE NO.63,
PANI KI TANKI KE PASS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANJAY GUPTA- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 04.10.2023
Pronounced on : 30.10.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
pronounced the following:
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrPC is filed assailing the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in Case No.286
of 2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior whereby
interim maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- is granted in favour of the
applicant/revision petitioner.
The exposition of facts, giving rise to this criminal revision, is as
under:-
(i) The petitioner/applicant Rajni Parashar married to non-
applicant/respondent Satish Parashar on 14.12.2010 at Shree-ji Vatika,
Indore. Due to constant harassment of respondent and his family
members, the applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
The applicant has no source of income. The non-applicant is a property
dealer and he earns Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Despite having sufficient
means, the non-applicant has neglected in providing maintenance to the
applicant. Therefore, the applicant had filed application under Section
125 of CrPC claiming maintenance from her husband.
(ii) Applicant had filed application for interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month and expenses of litigation of Rs.10,000/- per
month. Learned Principal Judge, on consideration of application, granted
interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month vide impugned order dated
06.12.2021.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance, this
revision petition is filed assailing the impugned order on following
grounds:-
(i) The order of learned Principal Judge, Gwalior is against the settled
principles of law.
(ii) Despite having sufficient means, the non-applicant has deliberately
neglected in maintenance of his wife.
(iii) Learned trial Court has passed the impugned order ignoring the
inflation. The amount of interim maintenance is insufficient for
maintenance of applicant.
On such grounds, it is requested that the order dated 06.12.2021 be
set aside and the non-applicant/respondent be directed to pay Rs.10,000/-
per month and the expenses of litigation as interim maintenance to the
revision petitioner.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that learned Principal
Judge, Gwalior did not consider the sources of income available with the
non-applicant and cursorily granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/-
per month which is grossly inadequate, considering the inflation and
standard of living of the parties.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned
Principal Judge, Gwalior on consideration of material on record,
committed no error in determination of interim maintenance. The petition
deserves to be dismissed.
Heard both the parties and perused the record.
The object of the provision contained in Section 125 of CrPC is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution. The Court needs to find out
requirement of the wife to maintain standard of living which is neither
luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the
family. The needs of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly
determined if her separate income, if any, is taken into account together
with the earning of husband and his responsibilities. It is aimed at
ameliorating the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman, who
had left her matrimonial home so that some suitable arrangement can be
made to enable her to sustain herself. The purpose of interim maintenance
is to provide help to the spouse to sail through the process of litigation
and to ensure atleast subsistence living.
The Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Others AIR
2021 SC 569 laid down format of affidavit of disclosure of assets and
liabilities to determine the issue of interim maintenance. Accordingly,
both the parties have filed the affidavits of disclosure. The affidavit filed
by non-applicant Satish Parashar discloses his monthly income of
Rs.12,000/-, further the earning of Rs.20,000/- per year by mutual funds.
However, it does not disclose the amount, Satish has invested in the
mutual funds. The affidavit further states three plots at Bhopal as self-
owned property of non-applicant Satish Parashar. He is stated to be owner
of 3.8 acres of agricultural land. Satish has mentioned responsibilities of
his adopted daughter Ishani Parashar at Rs. 20,000/- per month. It goes to
show availability of sufficient sources of income with respondent Satish
Parashar as also the standard of living of the parties.
The applicant Rajni Parashar in her disclosure affidavit stated that
she has no source of income. The correctness of aforementioned
statements on affidavit will be determined after the evidence of the
parties. Still, the statements on affidavit provide fair idea of the sources of
income and standard of living of non-applicant. Learned Principal Judge
failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Considering the sources of
income available with the respondent/husband and the standard of living
as discloses by the statements in the affidavit the amount of interim
maintenance determined by learned Principal Judge appears to be
inappropriate and inadequate.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, it is apparent that
learned Principal Judge has committed an error in determination of the
amount of interim maintenance.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 is set aside. It
is directed that the respondent/non-applicant Satish Parashar shall pay
interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the applicant Rajani
Parashar from the date of application till the conclusion of proceedings
under Section 125 of CrPC. The amount of interim maintenance paid till
date shall be set off.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Avi/vijay
VIJAY Digitally signed by VIJAY TRIPATHI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
TRIP
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=663cb09dd950bfc3ea7ed
4f02d97ddae5364f1d4b042dbc59
921b76e812d2d6b,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
ATHI
serialNumber=58392D8C4E7C969
3BFEEB5B46B3CA006F1127E8900
8952BBEC528CE4D82551BD,
cn=VIJAY TRIPATHI
Date: 2023.10.30 17:03:05 +05'30'
