Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Sharma vs Smt. Rani Sharma on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 4416 OF 2019
BETWEEN:-
MANOJ SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWATI
PRASAD SHARMA, AGE 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB, RESIDENT OF SUBHAS NAGAR,
BADE PARK KE PASS, HOUSE NO. 44B, HAZIRA,
GWALIOR PRESENT RESIDENT OF SHIV VIHAR,
COLONY NO. 2 SCHOOL KE PICHHE, DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
....REVISION PETITIONER
(SHRI ABHINAV BHARGAV- ADVOCATE FOR REVISION
PETITIONER)
AND
1. SMT. RANI SHARMA W/O SHRI MANOJ
SHARMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI RAMDAS
SHARMA, AGE 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION- NIL
RESIDENT OF SUBHAS NAGAR, BADE PARK KE
PAS, HOUSE NO. 44B, HAZIRA, GWALIOR
PRESENT RESIDENT OF SHIV VIHAR, COLONY
NO.2, SCHOOL KE PICHHE, DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RITIK SHARMA, SON OF SHRI MANOJ
SHARMA, AGE AGED 17 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT (MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. RANI SHARMA)
RESIDENT OF SUBHAS NAGAR, BADE PARK KE
PAS, HOUSE NO.44,B HAZIRA, GWALIOR
PRESENT RESIDENT OF SHIV VIHAR, COLONY
NO.2, SCHOOL KE PICHHE, DATIA (MADHYA
2
PRADESH)
3. RITIKA SHARMA D/O SHRI MANOJ SHARMA,
AGE 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT (MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.
RANI SHARMA) RESIDENT OF SUBHAS NAGAR,
BADE PARK KE PAS, HOUSE NO. 44B, HAZIRA,
GWALIOR PRESENT RESIDENT OF SHIV VIHAR,
COLONY NO.2, SCHOOL KE PICHHE, DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. VAISNAVI SHARMA D/O SHRI MANOJ
SHARMA, AGE 6 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT (MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. RANI SHARMA)
RESIDENT OF SUBHAS NAGAR, BADE PARK KE
PAS, HOUSE NO.44B, HAZIRA, GWALIOR
PRESENT RESIDENT OF SHIV VIHAR, COLONY
NO.2, SCHOOL KE PICHHE, DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRASAUN KUMAR MAHESHWARI- ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on :27-02-2024
Delivered on : 29-02-2024
This revision petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar passed the following:
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrPC is filed assailing the order dated 07-08-2019 passed by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Datia in MJC No.66 of 2019.
(2) Revision petition inter alia states as under:-
(i) Respondents have filed an application u/S 125 of CrPC against
revision petitioner. Pending the application under Section 125 of
CrPC, respondents have filed another application for grant of interim
maintenance, inter alia stating that revision petitioner is working as
Contractor in Surya Company. Further, he has a premises where-from
he receives Rs.30,000/- per month as rent. Respondent No.1 is wife
and respondents No.2 to 4 are children of revision petitioner. Revision
petitioner has obtained ex- parte decree of divorce against respondent
No.1.
(ii) Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, on hearing both the
parties, directed payment of interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per
month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month each to
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
(3) The impugned order is assailed in revision petition on following
grounds:-
(a) Revision petitioner had filed petition of divorce against
respondent No.1.The Family Court allowed the petition and passed
the decree of divorce in favour of revision petitioner. The appeal of
respondent No.1 (i.e. FA No.129 of 2017) has been dismissed by
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29th of September,
2018. Thereafter, present application for maintenance was filed on
08-04-2019.
(b) After divorce with respondent No.1, revision petitioner has
married to Geeta, D/o Rameshchandra on 11-04-2017. He earns
salary of Rs.4,800/- per month. He has responsibility of his family.
Respondent No.1 is divorced wife. Therefore, revision petitioner is
not responsible for her maintenance.
On aforementioned grounds, it is requested that the impugned order
dated 07-08-2019 be set aside.
(4) Learned Counsel for revision petitioner submits that the decree of
divorce between revision petitioner and respondent No.1 has attained
finality. Revision petitioner was granted decree of divorce on the ground of
desertion by respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to
claim maintenance from revision petitioner. The learned Family Court
committed error in granting interim maintenance without appreciating this
important aspect of the matter.
(5) Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents submits that the Family
Court, on consideration of factum of divorce between the parties, has
passed the impugned order on the basis of material available on record.
There is no error or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, this
revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
(6) Heard both the parties. Perused the record.
(7) Learned Counsel for revision petitioner, relying on the judgment
dated 17th of April, 1998 passed in case of Bhagwan Raoji Dale vs.
Sushma alias Nanda Bhagwan Dale, 1999(5) BOMCR851 and the order
dated 29th of November, 2016 passed by Indore Bench of this High Court
in case of Anil vs. Smt. Sunita and another [Criminal Revision No.829 of
2014], contends that revision petitioner was granted divorce on the ground
of desertion by his wife, therefore, divorced wife (respondent No.1) is not
entitled for maintenance.
(8) There is nothing on record to suggest that revision petitioner was
granted divorce on the ground of desertion by respondent No.1. The
impugned order does not reflect any such ground. Revision petitioner
although has filed copy of order dated 29 th of September, 2018 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.129 of 2017 [Rani
Sharma alias Janvi Vs. Manoj Sharma], but did not produce the copy of
the order granting divorce in favour of revision petitioner.
(9) Be that as it may. Respondent No.1 is divorced wife. She cannot be
compelled to live with her erstwhile husband after the decree of divorce.
Therefore, divorced wife cannot be denied of maintenance on the ground of
desertion of matrimonial home. Once the marriage between the parties is
dissolved by decree of divorce, the wife is under no obligation to cohabit
with her erstwhile husband. Explanation-(b) to Section 125 defines "wife"
to include a woman, who has been divorced by her husband and has not
remarried. Thus, the husband is under obligation to maintain his divorced
until her remarriage and the divorced wife cannot be deprived of
maintenance on the ground of desertion after divorce.
(10) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rohtas Singh Vs. Ramendri
(Smt) & Ors. Reported in 2000 (3) SCC 180 held as under:-
"A woman has two distinct right for maintenance as
wife she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffer from any
of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another
capacity, namely, as divorced women she is again entitled to
claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once
the wife. A woman after divorce becomes a destitute. If she
cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried the man who
was, once, her husband continues to be under a statutory duty
and obligation to provide maintenance to her."
(11) Learned Counsel for revision petitioner contends that revision
petitioner earns Rs.4,800/- per month as salary, therefore, it is not possible
for him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month.
(12) Learned Trial Court considering the material available on record
directed interim maintenance which will be subject to final outcome of
petition. No material irregularity or patent illegality is made out
necessitating interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The
revision petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.
(13) However, the Family Court is expected to expedite the hearing and
finally decide the matter at the earliest, preferably within three months
from the date of this order.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
MKB
MAHENDRA BARIK
2024.03.01 06:10:12
+05'30'
