Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil Parmar vs Smt. Manju Parmar on 28 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 28 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2514 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KAPIL PARMAR S/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O
VILLAGE KULASKALA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. MANJU PARMAR W/O SHRI KAPIL PARMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: D/O SHRI
SHIV NARAYAN AT PRESENT R/O VILLAGE
HADLAYKALA TEHYSIL SHUJALPUR DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ABHIRAJ S/O SHRI KAPIL PARMAR, AGED ABOUT
1 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH HIS
NATURAK GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. MANJU
PARMAR AT PRESENT R/O VILLAGE
HADLAYKALA TEHSIL SHUJALPUR DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order
dated 3.5.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sehore in
M.J.C.R. No. 247 of 2022 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant has been
directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No. 1 and a sum
of Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No. 2 as maintenance.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that in the present case
the aspect which escaped the attention of the Family Court is that the marriage
of the applicant and respondent No. 1 was declared null and void vide judgment
and decree dated 10.4.2023. The said judgment and decree was brought to the
notice to the Family Court, yet the Family Court without appreciating the said
aspect of the matter has proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is also
contended by the counsel for the applicant that the Family Court has failed to
take into consideration the fact that the applicant is paying a sum of Rs.1500/-
per month as maintenance to the respondents in the proceedings initiated under
the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is, therefore,
contended that as the applicant has no sufficient means of income, the
impugned order, being unsustainable, is liable to be quashed. In support of the
aforesaid contention, the counsel has placed reliance on the order dated
7.4.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 933 of 2015
(Kashanullah Khan Vs. Smt. Lima).
3. The counsel for the respondents submits that the present revision is
liable to be dismissed. It is contended that against the judgment and decree
dated 10.4.2023, by which the marriage of the applicant and respondent No. 1
has been declared null and void, an appeal has been preferred, which is pending
consideration before this Court. It is also contended that the Family Court did
not commit any error while passing the impugned order as the factum of
payment of a sum of Rs.1500/- under the Protection of Women From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 was also in the knowledge of the Family Court, which is
evident from perusal of Paragraph 13 of the impugned order. Hence, no
interference in the present revision is warranted.
4. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused
the material available record.
6. In the present case, the Family Court, vide impugned order has
directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the respondents as mentioned
hereinabove. The Family Court while assessing the said amount of maintenance
considered the income of the applicant, which is evident from Paragraph 18 of
the impugned order. The Family Court also observed that the annual income of
the applicant was Rs.84,000/- as per the stand of the applicant and in his Pass-
Book, there was deposit of an amount of Rs.3,80,769/-, thus, the applicant was
able enough to maintain the respondents and therefore, directed the applicant to
pay the aforesaid maintenance amount to the respondents. The factum of
judgement and decree dated 10.4.2023, by which the marriage of the applicant
and respondent No. 1 has been declared null and void, has also been taken into
consideration by the Family Court in Paragraph 11 of the impugned order. The
Family Court has also considered the aspect in Paragraph 17 of the impugned
order that there were sufficient reasons, which compelled respondent No.1/wife
to live separately from the applicant as the applicant had deserted respondent
No. 1.
7. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the Family Court has not committed any error while
passing the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the revision, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
