Shri Kantilal Panchal vs Smt. Kiranbai Panchal
2024 Latest Caselaw 8806 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Kantilal Panchal vs Smt. Kiranbai Panchal on 1 April, 2024

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                             1
                            IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                  ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1210 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SHRI KANTILAL PANCHAL S/O SHRI PRATAP PANCHAL,
                           AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                           TEACHER, R/O MAHIDPUR ROAD, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR,
                           DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI SHUBHAM VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           SMT. KIRANBAI PANCHAL W/O SHRI KANTILAL
                           PANCHAL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           HOUSEWIFE, R/O 267, MANCHHAMAN GANESH
                           COLONY, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (NONE)

                                 This revision coming on for admission/orders this day, the court passed
                           the following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.4236/2024 which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of 1611 days delay in filing criminal revision as well as on the question of admission.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397(1)/401(1) has been filed against order dated 09.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain in MJCR No.202/2019, whereby the learned Family Court passed an order granting

maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month.

4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is passed ex-parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, which is in complete violation of the express provisions of the law. He further submitted that the applicant was unaware about the order passed by the learned Family Court and the same came to the knowledge of the applicant on 06.05.2022 where for the first time Rs.20,000/- was deducted from the account of the applicant. Thereafter, he contacted to the Bank officials where he came to know that such an adverse

order was passed against him. He further submitted that the entry shown to the learned Family Court was dated back 07.04.2015, however, the applicant was retired in the year 2017 and on the date of passing the order the pension of the applicant was not more than to the tune of Rs.22,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of maintenance amount passed by the Family Court in favour of respondent is not in accordance with law because the same was passed ex-parte and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the applicant and at least, in the interest of justice, the applicant may be granted one last opportunity. He further submitted that looking to the pension of applicant, the total amount of maintenance Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent, is on higher side, therefore, the applicant should be granted opportunity to produce the evidence in support of his income and hence, the same may be reduced and the impugned order passed by learned Family Court in this regard may kindly be set aside. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Muthuchamy v. Neelavathy & Ors. (AIR 2023

Madras 291) in support of his submission.

5. No one is appearing on behalf of the respondent even after service.

6. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

7. From the bare perusal of the impugned order as well as material available on record, it is crystal clear that the learned Family Court has not committed any error of law and facts while passing the impugned order and in awarding the maintenance in favour of the respondent. Further, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The judgment cited by the applicant in the case of Muthuchamy(supra) will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference with the findings of learned Family Court is called for.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.4236/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal revision also stands dismissed.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE