Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atul vs Shikha on 19 February, 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 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3471 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SHIKHA W/O ATUL RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 518 SINGAPUR
TOWNSHIP TALWALI CHANDA INDORE.
CURRENT R/O 178M TRIMURTI NAGAR DHAR,
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRABAL D/O ATUL RATHOR MINOR THROUGH
MOTHER SHIKHA W/O ATUL RATHOR, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE N-
518 SINGAPUR TOWNSHIP TALWALI CHANDA
INDORE BOTH CURRENT R/O 178M TRIMURTI
NAGAR DHAR, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI MANISH YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ).
AND
ATUL S/O RAJESH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE N-518 SINGAPUR TOWNSHIP
TALAWALI CHANDRA LASUDIYA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI MOEED ALI BOHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ).
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2782 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ATUL S/O RAJESH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O N-518 SINGAPUR
TOWNSHIP TALAWALI CHANDA LASUDIYA INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI MOEED ALI BOHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 27-02-2024
09:29:51
2
AND
1. SHIKHA W/O ATUL RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 33
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 178M
TRIMURTI NAGAR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRABAL D/O ATUL RATHORE MINOR THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SHIKHA W/O
ATUL RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS TRIMURTI NAGAR,
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI MANISH YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-
2]).
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Both the Criminal Revisions are arising out of the same order and both
the are being heard and are being decided with this common order analogously.
1.These criminal revisions have been preferred under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners i.e. the Husband and Wife
respectively being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2023, passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar, in MJCR No.120/2022, whereby
learned Principal Judge has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. filed by the wife and directed the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- to his wife and son respectively, per month as maintenance.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the wife and son filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhar seeking
maintenance from the husband. As per her application, ( as per the impugned
order) the petitioner No.1 Shikha got married with the respondent Atul by Hindu
rights and rituals on 17.01.2019 and on 10.03.2020, they were blessed with a
son Prabal. She stayed in her matrimonial house, wherein her husband started
harassing and torturing her. After the birth of the baby boy, the husband did not
come and only his family members came their and after sometime, they returned
back. The respondent/husband demanded for money/dowry and he also told to
the wife that he would perform second marriage and again started Marpeet with
her and he left her in her maternal house and also thrown away her bag. Hence,
wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking Rs.40,000/- as
maintenance for herself and her son.
3. Learned counsel for the wife (petitioner in the impugned order) has
submitted that husband-Atul used to assault the petitioner. There is serious
allegation of dowry against the husband/respondent and a case of Domestic
Violence Act is also pending against him. Dignity and status of wife should be
maintained in accordance with the status of her matrimonial family. He has also
disclosed about his affair to his wife. Therefore, the amount of maintenance
may be enhanced.
4. The aforesaid facts were denied by the husband in his reply to the
application by stating that he has never mentally or physically tortured her wife
with regard to demand of dowry. He has neither demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from
her nor threatened her for doing marriage with another girl. The wife/(petitioner
in the impugned order) herself without informing him, used to go to her sister's
house and her matrimonial home and did not come back for long time. He has
purchased new car and new house in Singapore on behest of his wife. The
petitioner herself caused cruelty with him. Hence, she is not liable to get any
maintenance and her application is liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the
respondent has also placed reliance in the case of Ritu Bharga Vs. Sharad
Bharava Metrimonial appeal (Fc) No. 221/2018, decided on 31.08.2018,
passed by Division Bench of Delhi High Court. and submitted that Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act is not meant for equivalising the income of wife with
that of husband but to grant relief only in favour of a spouse who has no
independent source of income for his or her support.
5. It is revealed from the statement of Shikha (PW-1) that the
respondent/husband(in the present revision) has left the petitioner/wife in her
maternal home. She further stated that after marriage, on the pretext of demand
of dowry, the husband used to beat her and harass her. The statement of the
petitioner has not been reverted in her cross-examination in which she has also
admitted that she has completed the study of B.Com and M.A. and also given
tution to the children but she has also denied with regard to operating beauty
parlor. The statement of petitioner has not been reverted in her cross-
examination. On the contrary, Husband-Atul(N.A. W.-1) admitted in his cross
examination that his wife has lodged report under Section 498 - A of IPC and
has also filed a civil suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act. In cross-examination he has also admitted that he
deposits the income tax.
6.On this aspect the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 of
the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Ors.Vs. Anil Kachwaha, reported as
AIR 2015 SC 554 is worth referring here:
"10.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate
degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur
and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she
has income of her own and needs no financial support
from respondent. In our considered view, merely because
the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would
not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to
maintain herself."
7.As such in view of the aforesaid preposition only on the basis of
B.Com. and M.A. Decree the wife cannot be sued from getting maintenance
from her husband. Counsel for the respondent/husband relied upon the case of
Ritu Bharga Vs. Sharad Bharava (supra) is on different footing and is related
with Section 24 of HMA Act whereas this case is related to Section 125 of
CrPC. Hence, no benefit can be afforded to the petitioner on the basis of the
said judgment.
8. Be that at it may, a destitute lady, being a wife cannot be deprived of
for obtaining maintenance from her husband only on the basis that she is
educated and earning lady. On the basis of earning some thing for her
livelihood along with her child, the wife cannot be debarred from receiving
maintenance from her husband. In order to reckon the maintenance amount, it
should be kept in mind that the wife can neither be allowed to lead a luxurious
life, nor she can be compelled to lead a penurious life. Nevertheless, her dignity
and status should be maintained in accordance with the status of her
matrimonial family.
9 . In view of the foregoing observations and discussions and after
perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Family Court, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned order is just and proper and there is
no infirmity, illegality or incorrectness found in the same. The maintenance so
awarded is justified and proper in view of the income of husband as per the
record, Hence, the learned Court below has not erred in considering the
evidence available on record while passing the impugned order.
10. In view of the aforesaid, both the petitions filed on behalf of the
husband as well as on behalf of wife, are dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below concerned for
information.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
