Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalamsingh vs Smt. Nanbai on 6 August, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1 CRR-472-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 472 of 2016
KALAMSINGH
Versus
SMT. NANBAI
Appearance:
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 397 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2016, passed by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhabua, in MJCR No.2-A/2015,
whereby the learned Principal Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs.5000/-
per month in favour of the respondent wife.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family
Court has committed grave error of law in passing the impugned judgment.
The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that respondent is
living separately without any valid reason. It is settled position of law that
the proof of burden is first placed upon the wife to prove that the means of
her husband are sufficient and she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore,
order of maintenance has wrongly been passed and deserves to be set aside.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2 CRR-472-2016
4 . 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
rightly observed that the husband is having sufficient means of source of
income. The petitioner, in his statements before the learned family Court
himself has admitted that looking to the hike in prices, Rs.5000/- per month
is at lower side. Further, as per the settled provisions of law, the wife is also
entitled to maintain socio-economic status as per the financial status of her
husband.
5. It is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to a financial
status equivalent to that of the husband. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the test is
whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used
to live with her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC
83), it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard
of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with
status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean
that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C."
6. At this juncture, the following excerpts of Rajnesh Vs.Neha and
Ors.[(2021) 2 SCC 324] is reproduced below :-
"The test for determination of maintenance in
matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of
the respondent, and the standard of living that the
applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
The maintenance amount awarded must be
3 CRR-472-2016
reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive
and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so
meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency
of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is
able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis and law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court
appears to be just and proper. Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the
petitioner fails. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed and the
impugned order of the learned appellate Court is also hereby affirmed.
8. Pending application, if any, also closed.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
