Deepak Kumar vs Smt. Vandna Kumari Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12817 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deepak Kumar vs Smt. Vandna Kumari Singh on 7 May, 2024

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                                           1
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                          AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                                                    ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40162 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SHRI GANORI SINGH, AGED
                         ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BABHAMDIHGARH,
                         POST GHEURA, DISTT. AURANGABAD (BIHAR) AT
                         PRESENT R/O BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF
                         INDIA, KACHARI VARANASI (U.P.) PIN 221002

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                         (BY SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         SMT. VANDNA KUMARI SINGH, W/O DEEPAK KUMAR
                         SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O RAMPUKAR
                         SINGH, R/O NEHRU NAGAR, POST SINGRAULI, P.S.
                         MORVA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT


                               Reserved on      :    30.04.2024
                               Pronounced on : 07.05.2024

                               This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
                         pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                           ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to review /recall the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by this Court in Cr.R. Nos.1672/2022 and 1608/2022 under a common order requesting that the amount of maintenance awarded in that case be reduced to the amount allowed in MP No.1568/2019.

2. In a maintenance case registered as MJCR No.45/2018, the Principal

Judge, Family Court Singrauli passed an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on 13.04.2022 allowing the application partially and accordingly directing the applicant (herein referred to as 'husband') to make payment of monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'wife'). Both husband and wife preferred the Criminal Revision Nos.1608/2022 and 1672/2022 respectively. The wife prayed for enhancement of maintenance amount to Rs.50,000/- per month while the husband prayed for setting aside the maintenance order. By a common order dated 14.08.2023 this Court decided both the criminal revisions and confirming the impugned order of awarding maintenance @ 10,000/- per month to the wife, dismissed both the criminal

revisions.

3. The grounds raised herein are that despite making specific averments in the criminal revision petition regarding adjustment/set off of the amount awarded in previous proceeding of M.P. No.1568/2019 this Court failed to take note of it or give any finding on that issue. It has been claimed that according to the decision of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another 2021 (2) SCC 324 it was mandatory for the wife to disclose the maintenance amount she was receiving under various orders and that amount was required to be adjusted, but under the impugned order this mandatory guideline was overlooked. It has also been argued that a criminal prosecution is going on regarding Crime No.283/2019 regarding the issue of second marriage and the observation made by this Court in para 11 of the impugned order may prejudicially affect the case pending before the trial Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be reviewed /recalled.

4. Arguments of learned counsel for applicant have been heard.

5. The impugned order passed on 14.8.2023 has been perused. Its para

no.11 reads as under:-

"Admittedly, there is a criminal case registered against the respondent, the FIR of which is Ex.P/7. The offence of Section 494 of IPC is also mentioned in that FIR. Though the respondent has denied of having solemnized a second marriage, but registration of a criminal case for that offence, arrest of respondent and his alleged second wife in that case are the facts established through documentary evidence. It is claimed by the applicant that Ex.P/15 and P/16 are the photographs of second marriage of respondent."

6. The contents of this para do not reflect any fact which may have a bearing upon the defence of applicant in the trial of the offence of Section 494 of IPC. What has been mentioned in this para relates to admission about registration of a criminal case against applicant for that offence and also against his alleged second wife and their arrest in the case. Regarding Ex.P/15 and P/16, i.e. the photographs filed by the wife it is mentioned that wife has claimed these photographs to be of second marriage solemnized by husband. It has neither been argued here nor it is comprehendible how these admitted facts and the claim of the wife would prejudice the defence of the applicant in a criminal case.

7. It has also been argued here that the Court failed to adjust the maintenance amount awarded in M.P. No.1568/2019 despite making a reference to this fact in para 7 of the impugned order. Interestingly, an interim order of maintenance

was passed in M.P. No.1568/2019 on 05.08.2019 directing that the said maintenance amount be paid during the pendency of petition and notably that petition registered as M.P.No.1568/2019 was dismissed on 16.02.2023 for having been withdrawn. Thus, no maintenance order was in existence passed in that misc. petition when the impugned order of 14.08.2023 was passed.

8. The learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the decision of Apex

Court in Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and others 2020(13) SCC 172 holding that the embargo contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. prohibiting the Court to alter or review its judgment or final order, admits exceptions in context of an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but for the application of that exception, the applicant has first to establish that there is a requirement of alteration or review of the earlier order. Here he has failed to establish either of them. For the same reason the other case law relied upon by the applicant namely Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant Rajoria SLP (Crl) No.9313/2021 has no applicability here.

9. Applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court given in Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb and others (1999) 4 SCC 396, wherein the inherent powers of Court given under Section 151 of CPC for recalling an order was discussed, but here we are not considering a civil dispute.

10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC does not deserve to be admitted for the simple reason that no error apparent on the face of record has been shown by the applicant for exercising the power of recall/review. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE rv