Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puneet vs Pinky on 8 August, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1 CRR-5370-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5370 of 2023
PUNEET
Versus
PINKY
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sulabh Samaiya, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This revision petition has been preferred by the Petitioner/husband
being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24/08/2023 passed by Principal
Judge Family Court, Indore in MJC No.1151/ 2022 whereby the learned trial
court has partly allowed the interim maintenance application filed by the
Respondent/wife and awarded Rs.25,000/- per month as interim
maintenance. It is not disputed that the Respondent/wife is a legally married
wife of the Petitioner/husband.
2. The Respondent/wife filed an application under section 125 of
Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court. She also filed an interim maintenance
application stating that marriage of the Respondent was solemnized with the
Petitioner on 28/04/2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of the
marriage parents of the Respondent had given ornaments, cash and other
articles to the Petitioner as per their capacity. But after marriage, behaviour
2 CRR-5370-2023
of the Petitioner was not cordial with that of Respondent. There was illicit
relationship of the Petitioner with a woman named Ranju Arora. He used to
physically and mentally harass the Respondent after being intoxicated. On
10/08/2019 due to illicit relationship of the Petitioner with Ranju Arora,
Petitioner had physically assaulted the Respondent/wife. On 11/08/2019 the
Petitioner has sent Respondent to her maternal house with her brother. On
21/03/2022, the Petitioner came to maternal house of the Respondent and
brought her back to his house. But thereafter as well he again started to
physically and mentally harass her. On 14/07/2022 the Petitioner got the
Respondent out of his house again. Since then she has been living in her
maternal house. Respondent has no means to maintain herself and incapable
to do the same. While the Petitioner supplies medicine in government offices
and earns a sum of Rs.25,00,00,000/- in Annual turnover. He has several
immovable properties in Indore. He earns a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per
month. Thereby the Respondent made an application for interim maintenance
of Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
3. The Petitioner denied all the averment of the application and
pleaded that he never demanded dowry from the Respondent. He has never
physically or mentally harassed her in any manner. On the demand of
Respondent, the Petitioner has given lots of jewellery and a four wheeler. He
has transferred Lakhs of rupees in the bank account of the family members
of the Respondent. The behaviour of the Respondent was not appropriate
with the Petitioner. She used to level false allegations on the image of the
Petitioner. Thereafter she used to instigate him to leave her mother. The
3 CRR-5370-2023
Petitioner did not get the Respondent out of his house, but the
Respondent/wife herself has without any reasonable cause left the Petitioner
and went to her maternal house. The respondent is highly educated lady and
since before the marriage, she was the director at knowledge Partner Pvt.
Ltd. from her separate business she earns a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. She earns
Rs. 30,000/- per month in salary. She has 2 two-wheelers and 2 four
wheelers. Therefore, she is capable to maintain herself. While Petitioner has
taken loan from the Bank and he has to give Rs.36,00,000/- per year for the
payment of the debt. For the purpose of home loan he deposits Rs.25,000/-
per month. He has responsibility of the old aged mother and father.
Therefore, she is not entitled for interim maintenance.
4. Learned trial court after considering the averment of application and
reply, affidavits filed by both the parties in pursuance of guideline given by
the Apex court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 it has
been observed that there is no material which shows that the respondent has
sufficient source of income to maintain herself. While as per income tax
return it shows that the Petitioner has yearly income of Rs.21,44,726/-,
Rs.19,30,600/- Rs.28,88,040, and Rs.22,22,850 in assessment year 2019-20,
2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-2023, respectively. Agricultural income Rs.2-3
lakhs Yearly is not included in the aforesaid amount. Apart from that the
Petitioner has many plots and agricultural lands in Indore and village
Baharpur, Distt.- Burhanpur. Therefore, he has sufficient source of income
and he is capable to maintain the Respondent/ wife.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent is a
4 CRR-5370-2023
highly educated woman. She has pursued MBA and MSC while the
Petitioner is a class 9th passing guy. It is also submitted that the learned trial
court has considered the income part of the Petitioner but has not duly
considered his responsibility as given in his affidavit. However it is fairly
submitted that at present the Respondent has no job. It is also submitted that
interim maintenance amount is on higher side which needs to be reduced
down. He has placed reliance on the case of Chetram Mali Vs. Karishma
Saini [2023 DHC 8322].
6. On other hand learned counsel for the Respondent/ wife supported
the impugned order and submitted that looking to the income of the
Petitioner, it cannot be said that interim maintenance is on the higher side.
Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. On perusal of record it appears that, the respondent has taken car
loan from the Federal Bank which has EMI of Rs.9,009/- which has to be
given up to 15/07/2026. The Petitioner has shown his yearly income
Rs.22,22,850/- in year 2022-23. He also receives Rs.2-2.5 Lakh from
agricultural land. He has taken home loan of Rs.22,00,000/- from SBI Bank
and Rs.6,25,29,332/- with interest from the market. EMI of home loan is
Rs.21,500/- per month and Rs.36,63,342/- as interest. However no
documents are filed by the Petitioner in this case with respect to his
liabilities. Though, the Petitioner mentioned in his affidavit that the
Respondent works as Handwriting Expert and director of knowledge partner
from which she earns Rs.7-8 lakhs and receives interest of Rs.30,000 -
40,000 but no document has been filed by the Petitioner.
5 CRR-5370-2023
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In the case of Chetram Mali (Supra) the Delhi High Court has held
as under:-
"6. It may be noticed that though respondent claims to
have no independent source of income but has
reasonable educational background being a graduate
from Delhi University. She appears to have voluntarily
undertaken social work as claimed despite there being
no impediment for undertaking a meaningful
employment. The spouse having a reasonable capacity
of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and
idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating
sincere efforts to gain employment should not be
permitted to saddle the other party with one sided
responsibility of meeting out the expenses. The
equivalence does not have to be with mathematical
precision but with the objective to provide relief to the
spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite and
litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and
support during the pendency of proceedings and to
ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of
source of income. The provision is gender neutral and
the provisions of Section 24 & 25 of HMA provide for
the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from
marriage between the parties under HMA.
10. Considering the aforementioned materials available on record, it
appears that the Respondent is a legally wedded wife of the Petitioner. It also
appears that the Petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself. As
per allegation the Petitioner ousted her from his house and the Respondent is
living at her parental house. While the Respondent has sufficient means to
maintain his wife. Looking to income and liabilities of the Petitioner it
appears that the learned trial court has rightly awarded monthly maintenance
in favour of the Respondent. Amount of interim maintenance appears to be
6 CRR-5370-2023
reasonable. It also appears that the learned trial court has rightly passed the
impugned order and it does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and
impropriety. Objections raised by petitioner can be decided on merit. The
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful
to him.
11. In view of the aforesaid, interference is not required in the
impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
ajit
