Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nidhi Chaturvedi vs Rajiv Chaturvedi on 29 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
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5772 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NIDHI CHATURVEDI W/O RAJIV CHATURVEDI, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOME MAKER R/O
VILLAGE INDORAMA BAGDUN PITHAMPUR DISTT.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ARPIT SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
RAJIV CHATURVEDI S/O RAVINDRA NATH CHAUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: DEPUTY
MANAGER R/O BALKRISHNA INDUSTRY LTD. 556/2
BHUJ BHACHAW ROAD VILLAGE PATHDAHR TEHSIL
BHUJ DISTT.KUUCH GUJRAT 370105 (GUJARAT)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIJAY SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4863 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJIV CHATURVEDI S/O RAVINDRA NATH CHOUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: DEPUTY
MANAGER R/O BALKRISHNA INDUSTRY LTD. 556/2
BHUJ BHACHAW ROAD VILLAGE PATHDHAR TEHSIL
BHUJ DISTT. KUUCH (GUJARAT)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VIJAY SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
NIDHI W/O RAJIV CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE INDORAMA BAGDUN
PITHAMPUR DISTT.DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
.....RESPONDENTS
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 2/29/2024
6:18:04 PM
2
(SHRI ARPIT SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
........................................................................................................................................
HEARD ON 07.02.2024
DELIVERED ON :29.02.2024
Th is revision petitioners were heard and the court pronounced the
following:
ORDER
Both the petitions were heard analogously with the consent of both the
parties.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the petitions are being decided with
this common order and the facts are being taken from CRR No.5772/2023.
3. Both criminal revisions have been preferred on behalf of the wife and
husband both being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by
Principal Judge, Family court Dhar in JMCR No.41/2023 whereby the learned
family Court has allowed the application of the wife filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month in favour of wife.
4. Before this Court, wife has filed the petition for enhancement of the
maintenance amount whereas the husband has preferred the petition for
reduction of the maintenance amount so awarded in favour of wife.
5. Briefly stated facts of the case in short are that marriage of both the
parties was solemnized on 02.05.2022 as per the Hindu Customs and Rituals.
After some time of the marriage, her husband and his family members started to
harass her for fulfilling their demand of dowry. Thereafter, due to harassment of
the wife, she has started to reside separate from her husband. Hence, she has
filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
The learned trial Court, on due consideration of the same, awarded Rs.15000/-
per month as maintenance in favour of wife. Hence, both wife and husband filed
t h e respective petition for enhancement and reduction of the maintenance
amount.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife has submitted that in view of
the income of husband, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and
awarded the maintenance on lower side. It is further submitted that the husband
has not filed the salary slip and concealed his income, however, the learned trial
Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of evidence on record. It is
further submitted that learned trial Court has however, passed the impugned
judgment in accordance with law, but the maintenance in favour of the wife
should be Rs.50000/- per month.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer
by submitting that the learned trial Court has wrongly awarded the maintenance
in favour of wife without considering the evidence available on record. It is
further submitted that there is no harassment either on the part of his parents or
on the part of husband. It is also submitted that the petitioner/wife has leveled
false allegations regarding demand of dowry against husband. Per contra, wife
has threatened her husband to implicate in a false case. It is further submitted
that the petitioner/wife is an educated woman and she is not entitled for any
maintenance. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the bare perusal of the impugned order as well as material
available on record, it is crystal clear that the learned Family Court has rightly
observed that the husband is having sufficient means of source of income. It is
also apparent from the face of record that the wife is not able to maintain herself
and is having no source of income, therefore, the learned Family Court has not
committed any error of law and facts while passing the impugned order and in
awarding the maintenance in favour of the wfie. Further, as per the settled
provisions of law, the wife is also entitled to maintain socio-economic status as
per the financial status of her husband.
10. So far as the contentions of learned counsel for the husband is
concerned that she is an educated lady. On this aspect the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 of the case of Sunita Kachwaha and Ors.
(Supra) 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."
11. In view of the aforesaid law, it is evident that the petitioner cannot be
eschewed to get maintenacne only on the basis that she is an educated lady.
12. Further, in view of the impugned order, it is crystal clear that the
respondent/husband is living in his life style and maintaining the standards,
therefore, as per the settled provisions of law, the wife is certainly entitled to live
her life as per the standards of her husband. On this aspect, it is asserted in
Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse [AIR (2014) SCW 256], the
purposive interpretation needs to be given to provisionof Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and it is bounden duty of Courts to advance cause of social justice. It
is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to a financial status
equivalent to that of the husband. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the test is whether
the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to live with
her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed
that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is
neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family.
The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must
be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C."
13. At this juncture, the following excerpts of Rajnesh Vs.Neha and
Ors.[(2021) 2 SCC 324] is reproduced below :-
" T h e test for determination of maintenance in
matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the
respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant
was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
T h e maintenance amount awarded must be
reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and
unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre
that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the
quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to
maintain herself with reasonable comfort."
14. Now, turning to the contentions of wife's petition Criminal Revision
No.5772/2023, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife requested for
enhancement of the maintenance amount. However, on the basis of evidence
and other circumstances, learned trial Court has awarded the amount of
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month correctly and in accordance with law.
The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the income of the
husband/respondent and awarded the maintenance in accordance with law after
following the due ratio which is normally required to be considered by the
Courts at the time of passing the orders of maintenance. Hence, the revision
petition filed on behalf of petitioner-wife is having no merits and the same is
hereby dismissed.
15. In upsot of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
settled position of law, the order passed by learned trial Court has no infirmity,
impropriety or illegality, hence, both the petitions filed on behalf of both the
parties, are dismissed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below concerned for
information.
17. A copy of this order be placed in the record of CRR No.4863/2023.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AMIT
