Preetam Singh vs Smt. Manju Verma
2024 Latest Caselaw 6332 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Preetam Singh vs Smt. Manju Verma on 1 March, 2024

                                                     1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                            ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
                                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2806 of 2019

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    PREETAM SINGH S/O SHRI DAMODAR PRASAD
                                VERMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                SERVICE VAIJNATH KABADI KA MAKAN KALI
                                MANDIR KE PAAS FORESTER WARD JHARRA
                                TIKURIYA THANA KOTWALI KATNI (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    DAMODAR PRASAD VARMA S/O SHRI JHALKAN
                                PRASAD VARMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O GRAM
                                SALICHOUKA THANA AND TAHSIL GADARWARA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    MAHENDRA KUMAR VARMA S/O SHRI JHALKAN
                                PRASAD VARMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION:  AGRICULTURE    R/O  GRAM
                                SALICHOUKA THANA AND TAHSIL GADARWARA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    SMT. YOGITA VARMA S/O P. MAHENDRA SINGH
                                VARMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                HOUSE WIFE R/O GRAM SALICHOUKA THANA
                                AND TAHSIL GADARWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR BAKSHI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          SMT. MANJU VERMA W/O SHRI PREETAM SINGH
                          VERMA D/O BHAGWAN SINGH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 33
                          Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: STAFF  NORCE   DISTT.
                          CHIKITSALAYA NARSINGHPUR K-37 PETROL PUMP KE
                          PECHHE RUDRAWARD GOTEGAON THANA TEHSIL
                          GOTEGAON (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (NONE )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 3/4/2024
10:21:50 AM
                                                               2
                                This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

This Court had issued notice of this revision to the respondent. As per service report received from Superintendent of Police, the respondent has been served on 14.07.2019. The respondent has again been served by process of Court on 24.02.2021. However, the respondent has chosen not to appear before this Court.

2. Heard on merits.

3. The present revision has been filed against the order Annexure A/13 dated 15.04.2019 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order

dated 31.10.2018 Annexure A/11 passed by JMFC Narsinghpur deciding application under Section 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month was awarded to the respondent-wife.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has criticized the order on the ground that in para 8 of the order of trial Court the contention of the applicant has been mentioned that the respondent has worked as nurse and getting a salary of Rs. 40000/- per month. Even the salary slip of the year 2016 was filed. However, in para 9 of the order, the trial court disbelieved the said salary slip on the ground that no current document to that effect has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the husband-applicant referred to order passed in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the family court Narsinghpur on 09.09.2021 and stated that in the said proceedings respondent- wife has admitted that she is in government service as nurse since prior to her marriage. She admitted that presently she is posted at Community Health Centre

Gotegaon and getting monthly net salary in hand to the tune of Rs. 36000/-. Incidently, the present applicant was also found to be in government service and getting net salary Rs. 30,000/- per month. On perusal of the order for maintenance proceedings, it appears that the family court has held that both i.e. husband and wife are in government service and the salary of the wife was more that of husband, hence, Family Court held that there is nothing to show that the wife is unable to maintain herself.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the trial court in the case has passed the order without any inquiry into the contention of the applicant that the wife is in service and under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, the said contention has been found to be proved.

7. Considering the aforesaid the order Annexure A/11 dated 31/10/2018 and order Annexure A/13 dated 15/04/2019 are set-aside.

8. The trial court is directed to redecide the application under Section 23 or to decide the matter finally by calling affidavit and by causing inquiry in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in 2021(2) SCC 324.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA