Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Rai vs Smt. Khushbu on 7 May, 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
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2880 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP RAI S/O LATE SHRI RAMGOPAL RAI, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PUTAI HOUSE NO. 22-
23, KHEDI NAKEDAR KE MAKAN KE PASS, TRIVEDI
COLONY, PANDYAKHEDI, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI MUKESH RAV JADHAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER .
AND
1. SMT. KHUSHBU W/O SANDEEP RAI, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVIDE 60, BAFNA
PARK COLONY SENTPAL SCHOOL KE PICHE,
AGAR ROAD, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KU. NIYATI MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. KHUSBOO W/O
SANDEEP, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE 60 BAFNA PARK COLONY SAINT PAUL
SCHOOL KE PICHE, AAGAR ROAD UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
T h i s revision petition was heard and reserved and the court
pronounced the following:
ORDER
(1) This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 19(4) of
the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2022
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Ujjain, in MJC
No.100103/2017/2017, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the
petitioner to pay of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.2000/-
per month in favour of respondent no.2/child as maintenance. Hence, the
present petition before this Court.
2 . Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 11.06.2015 as per Hindu Rights and Customs.
Thereafter, the respondent has alleged that after only one year of the marriage,
the petitioner and his family members have harassed her mentally and tortured
physically, they demanded Rs.5Lacs from the respondent as dowry and they
have taken the articles of the house away from her reach. Hence, she started
living separately and filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant
o f maintenance. Thereafter, the learned Family Court has allowed the
application filed by the respondent wife and awarded total maintenance
Rs.6000/- per month in her and her daughter's favour. Hence the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family
Court has committed grave error of law in passing the impugned judgment.
Respondent is not residing with the petitioner without any reason and therefore,
she is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned Family Court has failed to
consider that there is a possibility of compromise of both parties during the
pendency of the petition. The respondent is also having source of earning. The
learned Family Court has wrongly awarded total Rs.6000/- to the respondents
as maintenance is on higher side, hence, prays for setting aside the impugned
order.
4.No one is appeared on behalf of the respondent/wife even after service
of notice.
5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6 . 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 as he
working as contractor of electrical works and having other income also. It is
also apparent that the wife is not able to maintain herself, 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 wife. 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.
7. 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."
8. 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."
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court appears to
be just and proper. Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the petitioner
fails. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed and the impugned order of
the learned appellate Court is also hereby affirmed.
10. Pending application, if any, also closed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
