Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Nitesh @ Mahesh vs Sangeeta
2023 Latest Caselaw 15181 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15181 MP
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitesh @ Mahesh vs Sangeeta on 14 September, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
                                                          1
                           IN      THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                           ON THE 14 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2341 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          NITESH @ MAHESH S/O PREMCHAND SURAHA, AGED
                          ABOUT 31 YEARS, BHOLARAM COMPOUND, NEEMUCH
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI SATISH JAIN, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    SANGEETA W/O NITESH @ MAHESH SURAHA,
                                AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
                                SERVICE BHOLARAM COMPOUND, NEEMUCH
                                PRESENTLY   ADD.    BARUKHEDA      ROAD,
                                CHOUDHARY MOHOLLA, GWALTOLI, DISTRICT -
                                NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MAHIMA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS D/O NITESH @
                                MAHESH SURAHA (MINOR) THROUGH NATURAL
                                GUARDIAN MOTHER SANGEETA W/O NITESH @
                                MAHESH SURAHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION:   PRIVATE   SERVICE    R/O
                                BARUKHEDA ROAD CHOUDHARY MOHALLA
                                GWALTOLI DISTRICT - NEEMUCH (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    M EGHA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS D/O NITESH @
                                SURAHA   (MINOR)    THROUGH    NATURAL
                                GUARDIAN MOTHER SANGEETA W/O NITESH @
                                MAHESH SURAHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION:   PRIVATE    SERVICE   R/O
                                BARUKHEDA ROAD CHOUDARY MOHALLA
                                GWALTOLI DISTRICT - NEEMUCH (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                          (NONE)

                                T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 9/15/2023
5:40:20 PM
                                                              2
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

T he present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the order of maintenance dated 04.04.2022, passed in MJCR No. 03/2018 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District- Neemuch (M.P), whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the application by rejecting the application of respondent No. 1/wife and awarded the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively per month from the date of order.

2. Regarding this revision petition, it is undisputed that the marriage between the petitioner/hsuband and respondent/wife was solemnized on 26.04.2007. Out of this wedlock twins children namely Mahima and Megha were born. After that, the petitioner was used to beat the respondent/Wife and on 26.04.2016, the petitioner/husband expelled out the respondent/wife. Hence, the application for maintenace was filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been challenged on behalf of the petitioner on various grounds. It is highly remonstrated that learned Court below itself presumed that the monthly income of the petitioner is only Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- and in spite of that an amount of Rs.3,000/- each of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has been awarded as monthly maintenance. It is also contended that learned Family Court did not consider the fact that respondent/wife is earning her income.

3. Learned Court below has also noticed the fact that the respondent No.1/wife is voluntarily not residing with the petitioner/husband. It is also expostulated that the respondent No. 1/wife has failed to prove her pleadings, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/15/2023 5:40:20 PM

even then the Court below has committed error in its findings.

4. During the course of arguments Shri Jain, mainly submitted on the point of quantum of maintenance and exposited that learned trial Court has wrongly awarded maintenance on the higher side, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. Now coming to the point of maintenance amount, learned trial Court in the impugned judgment expressed that the petitioner/husband is working as driver of Tampo and other work and thereby getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. Looking to the fact that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is also suffered from disablement. The petitioner being father of minor children, is liable to maintain them. Hence, in view of the present scenario of the society, Rs.3,000/- for each child cannot be assumed on higher side. Therefore, the order of learned trial Court regarding awarding of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has no infirmity and illegality.

7. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. Hence, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Vindesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/15/2023 5:40:20 PM

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter