Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Dipika vs Sourabh Sharma on 21 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 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2510 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. DIPIKA W/O SOURABH SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
GRAM KELI, DISTRICT KHARGONE, CURRENTLY
R/O: GRAM SILODA KHURD, THANA SAGOR,
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BABY MISHTI @ SANVI SHARMA D/O SOURABH
SHARMA MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GAURDIAN MOTHER SMT. DIPIKA SHARMA W/O
SOURABH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE GRAM SILODA
KHURD, THANA SAGOR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SARIKA ATHALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
AND
SOURABH SHARMA S/O OMPRAKASH SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MOBILE SHOP GRAM
KELI, THANA OON, TEHSIL SEGAON, DISTRICT
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ADITYA CHOUDHARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act of Cr.P.C r/w Section 397 of Cr.P.C. being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.05.2023, passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dhar M.P., in MJCR No.162/2022, whereby the learned
Principal Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month only in favour
of daughter and dismissed the applicant qua petitioner/wife. Hence, present
petition.
2 . During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that only on the basis of decree in a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife has not been granted
maintenance from the respondent whereas there is allegations of causing cruelty
upon her. The learned family court has also acknowledged that there is an
affidavit of respondent Ex.P/1 in which he himself has asseverated that he did
not want Dipika to live with him. But, the learned family court has wrongly
dismissed the application and only granted maintenance in favour of petitioner
no.2/daughter. Hence, prays for maintenance in favour of petitioner no.1.
3. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer. However, he has
conceded the legal position and if there is an decree in favour of respondent
under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights,
she cannot be eschewed from getting maintenance. It is also submitted that
petitioner no.1/wife is running a beauty parlor and she is a able to maintain
herself. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance.
4. Having considered the rival contentions made by counsel for the
parties and after going through the record, from the face of record, it is clear
that the respondent left the petitioner when she was pregnant. and this statement
of petitioner has not been controverted in the cross-examination by the
respondent. Hence, looking to the fact that income of the respondent is
assumed as Rs.20000/- per month, and he is already paying Rs.4000/- per
month in favour of petitioner no.2/daughter, it would be appropriate to award
Rs.2000/- per month in favour of the petitioner no/1/wife also.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition stands disposed of by
setting aside the impugned order qua the petitioner no.1/wife with a direction
that the respondent shall pay Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance in favour of
the petitioner/wife also from the date of impugned order dated 10.05.2023. Rest
of the conditions of impugned order stands affirmed.
6. Respondent is also directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance
amount within two months from the date of order passed from today.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned for
information.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
