Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju Kewat vs Smt. Usha Bai on 27 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 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1749 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SANJU KEWAT S/O SIYACHARAN KEWAT, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, R/O. VIKLL. CHHULKARI P.S. ANUPPUR TEH
AND DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR NAPIT - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SMT. USHA BAI W/O SANJU KEWAT, AGED ABOUT
20 YEARS, R/O. VIKLL. CHHULKARI P.S. ANUPPUR
TEH AND DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANGALDEEN KEWAT S/O SANJU KEWAT, AGED
ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT.UDHA BAI W/O SANJU KEWAT VILLAGE
CHHULKARI PS ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JAGANNATH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1203 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. USHA BAI W/O SANJU KEWAT, AGED ABOUT
20 YEARS, VILL. CHHULKARI P.S. ANUPPUR THE.
AND DIST. ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANGALDEEN KEWAT S/O SHRI SANJU KEWAT,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THR. NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. USHA
BAI W/O SANJU KEWAT AT PRESENT R/O
VILLAGE CHHULKARI P.S.ANUPPUR, TAHSIL AND
DISTT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 2/29/2024
5:23:01 PM
2
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI JAGANNATH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
SANJU KEWAT S/O SIYACHARAN KEWAT, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, VILL. CHHULKARI P.S. ANUPPUR TEH. AND
DIST. ANUPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR NAPIT - ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid criminal
revisions.
2. Both these revisions have been filed against order dated 30.1.2020
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Anuppur in M.J.C. No. 164 of 2017.
3. The facts of case, in short, are that Smt. Usha Bai approached the
Family Court along with her son namely Mangaldeen by way of filing an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance claiming that
she is the wife of Sanju Kewat and Mangaldeen is their son. It was submitted in
the application by Smt. Usha Bai that as she was subjected to cruelty, she was
residing with her mother and therefore, maintenance be granted to her and her
son.
4. The said application was disputed by Sanju Kewat on the ground that
Smt. Usha Bai was not his legally wedded wife.
5. The aspect that Smt. Usha Bai was not legally wedded wife of Sanju
Kewat was taken note of by the Family Court in Paragraph 22 of the impugned
judgment and the Court then proceeded to conclude that as Smt. Usha Bai was
already married to one Charkha Kewat @ Narmada and was having living
spouse, therefore, without there being any divorce, she could not have entered
into wedlock with Sanju Kewat and accordingly denied the maintenance to Smt.
Usha Bai.
6. The counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Usha Bai submits that the
order impugned deserves to be set aside, inasmuch as, Smt. Usha Bai is also
entitled for maintenance amount. It is further evident that Mangaldeen is the son
of Smt. Usha Bai and Sanju Kewat, which is evident from DNA report, which
has been dealt with in Paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment. The Family
Court has grossly erred in declining the maintenance to Smt. Usha Bai.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
7. The counsel appearing for Sanju Kewat submits that in Paragraph 33
of the impugned order, the Family Court has directed to pay the maintenance at
the rate of Rs.2000/- per month with effect from 7.7.2013 and Rs.4000/- w.e.f.
February, 2020. It is contended that liability of paying arrears from July, 2013 to
January, 2020 i.e. for a period of almost 7 years has been fastened without
assigning any reason in the order, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
8. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is
evident that the Family Court has declined maintenance to Smt. Usha Bai on the
ground that she was already married to one Charkha Kewat @ Narmada and
without there being any divorce, she could not have entered into wedlock with
Sanju Kewat. This finding of the Family Court, which is evident from
Paragraphs 22 and 24 of the impugned judgment, in the considered view of this
Court does not require interference.
9. So far as maintenance to son Mangaldeen is concerned, the Family
Court in Paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment, has directed to pay
maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f. 7.7.2013 and Rs.4000/- per month
w.e.f. February, 2020. It is further evident that the amount of Rs.600/- per
month towards interim maintenance was being paid to son Mangaldeen and final
order on the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was passed on
30.1.2020. Therefore, it appears that the said application remained pending for
almost 7 years and the Family Court has passed the order of granting
maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f.
7.7.2013. This part of Paragraph 33 of the impugned order, in the considered
view of this Court is required to be interfered with, inasmuch as the Family
Court has not assigned any reason as to why the said amount was being
enhanced, more particularly when the case remained pending for about 7 years.
The Family Court has not discussed in the entire impugned order as to what
were the reasons on account of which the case remained pending for about 7
years before the Family Court. It is also evident from the impugned order that
no lapses have been attributed to Sanju Kewat regarding pendency of the case
for about 7 years. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the order of grant
of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f. 7.7.2013 till January, 2020
deserves to be modified.
10. Accordingly, the direction contained in Paragraph 33 of the
impugned order dated 30.1.2020 is modified and it is directed that son
Mangaldeen shall be entitled for Rs.600/- per month w.e.f. 7.7.2013 till January,
2020 and rest of the order shall remain intact according to which Sanju Kewat
shall pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance to son Mangaldeen
w.e.f. February, 2020 onwards.
11. In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Revision No. 1749 of 2020 filed by
Sanju Kewat is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and Criminal Revision No.
1203 of 2020 filed by Smt. Usha Bai is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
