Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Prakash Jaitwar vs Smt. Poonam on 8 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 303 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHRI PRAKASH JAITWAR S/O KANHAIYALAL JAITWAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: C.N.W., HELPER,
SECOND GROUP-D, RAILWAY NEAR DATTA TEMPLE
CHHOTA GONDIA DISTRICT GONDIA (MAHARASHTRA)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI M.S DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. POONAM W/O PRAKASH JAITWAR, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O
NEAR DATTA TEMPLE, CHHOTA GONDIA, DISTT.
GONDIA (MH) RESIDENT R/O WARD NO. 11 BUDHI
IN THE HOUSE OF RAMESH SONGADE BEHIND
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RUDRAKSH JAITWAR S/O PRAKASH JAITWAR,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
EDUCATION NATURAL GAURDIAN THROUGH
MOTHER SMT. POONAM JAITWAR W/O PRAKASH
JAITWAR R/O NEAR DATTA TEMPLE, CHHOTA
GONDIA, DISTT. GONDIA (MH) RESIDENT R/O
WARD NO. 11 BUDHI IN THE HOUSE OF RAMESH
SONGADE BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAWNJAY SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking quashment of order dated
23/08/2022 in MJC-R/2018 passed by Principal Judge, family Court, Balaghat.
2. It is contended by the counsel that the respondent wife moved an
application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court and claimed
maintenance for herself as well as son of petitioner namely Rudraksh. The
application filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed and the Court has
granted Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 and
Rs.3,000/- to Respondent No.2.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the Family Court has passed the
order in complete oblivion of the fact that vide judgment dated 07/05/2021
delivered in Criminal Case No.116/2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gondia the present applicant was acquitted of the charges levelled against the
present applicant under Section 498A of IPC. It is contended by the counsel
that in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Court specifically observed that
respondent's No.1 conduct was doubtful and she was not firm on her stand.
The Court also observed that on different occasions, different kind of stands
were taken by the respondent No.1 in different cases. It is contended by the
counsel that the aforesaid important findings which are contained in paragraph
15 of the judgement dated 07/05/2021 delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gondia are important for the purposes of instant matter.
4. It is contended by the counsel that the Family Court arrived at totally
unsustainable findings in paragraph 27. It is contended by the counsel that the
respondent No.1 produced a salary slip of the present applicant of July, 2021 in
which the Gross salary of the present applicant was being shown as Rs.44,888/-
and considering the aforesaid, the Court came to a conclusion that present
applicant was earning Rs.40,850/- after deduction. This finding were totally
misconceived and baseless inasmuch as, as per the salary slip of the applicant
of August, 2021, his Gross pay was Rs.33,617/- and after deduction his net pay
was Rs.19,579/-. It is therefore contended that the order impugned deserves to
be set aside. It is also submitted that a perusal of Annexure A/5 reflects that
respondent No.1 is gainfully employed as she is working as teacher in an
institution named as "Trust me, I'm a Teacher". This aspect has not been
considered by the Family Court, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
present Revision deserves to be dismissed. The Court while appreciating the
rival contention of the parties, has rightly passed the order which does not
require any interference inasmuch as, the applicant is an employee of South East
Central Railway and as per the salary of the present applicant, discussed in
paragraph 27 of the order, the order granting maintenance, does not require any
interference. It is contended by the counsel that by efflux of time, even
maintenance so granted by the Court is insufficient and therefore, respondent
No.1 is willing to move an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. hence
submits that the present Revision deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
7. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
8. It is evident from perusal of the impugned order that the Court
considered the rival submissions and also considered the cross-examination of
the present applicant. The applicant before the Court had produced the salary
slip of January, 2019 in which his salary was being shown as Rs.26,642/-
however, in cross-examination, he accepted that his salary was Rs.28,229/-.
The said examination was conducted on 13/03/2021. Later on, the Court while
taking into consideration the salary slip of July, 2021, of the present applicant
which was produced by respondent No.1 concluded that the net salary of the
present applicant was Rs.40,850/-.
9. The said finding so arrived that in paragraph 27, if considered
minutely, the same would reveal that according to present applicant's own
showing, his salary in August 2021, was of Rs.33,617/- according to salary slip
which is produced today during course of hearing. Meaning thereby, even
assuming the applicant's contention is to be correct, he was drawing salary of
Rs.33,617/- in the month of August, 2021. The order of Family Court has been
passed on 23/08/2022 and undisputedly by the time of passing of order, the
salary of the present applicant in all probability, must have been enhanced.
However, the applicant in the present case has not placed any document to
demonstrate that what was his salary in the year, 2022 and his current salary.
10. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered view that taking into
consideration the salary which the petitioner was getting, the Court rightly
passed the order of granting Rs.7,000/- as maintenance to the respondent No.1
and Rs.3,000/- to his son/respondent No.2. The applicant being an abled body
person having employed with South East Central Railway, has bounden duty to
provide maintenance to his wife as well as his son.
11. Hence, in absence of any substance in this petition, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 23/08/2022.
12. Resultantly, the present Revision stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
