Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Gamad vs Smt. Manju Gamad 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. 3236 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RADHESHYAM GAMAD S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR JI
GAMAD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM REN DISTRICT RATLAM / GRAM
BAMBORI POST LUNERA TEHSIL AND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY RITURAJ BHATNAGAR, ADVOCATE )
AND
SMT. MANJU GAMAD W/O RADHESHYAM GAMAD,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
GRAM BADNARA TEH. AND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY NONE )
Heard on:15.04.2024
Delivered on: 0705.2024
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 04.06.2019
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Rajgarh (Biaora), in
MJC No.243/2017, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the
petitioner to pay of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.
2 . Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 04.02.2014 as per Hindu Rights and Customs at
Ratlam. 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.1.5Lacs 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 of maintenance. Thereafter, the learned Family Court has allowed the
application filed by the respondent wife and awarded maintenance Rs.6000/-
per month in her 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 Rs.6000/- to the respondents as
maintenance, hence, the application filed by the respondent under Section 125
of CrPC may be dismissed.
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
is indulge in the business of milk or dairy product. 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
