Pratap vs Smt. Antarbai
2024 Latest Caselaw 13327 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pratap vs Smt. Antarbai on 9 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 9 th OF MAY, 2024
                                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4576 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         PRATAP S/O SHRI BHURA JI OCCUPATION: TEACHER
                         VILL. PAT, TEH. TARANA, DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                         (SHRI NARESH PIPLODIYA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    SMT. ANTARBAI W/O PRATAP, AGED ABOUT 42
                               YE A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE MALHAR
                               COLONY, DEWAS DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    PREETI D/O PRATAP, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
                               OCCUPATION: N.A. MALHAR COLONY, DEWAS
                               DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                         ( SHRI ABHISHEK RAJURKAR - ADVOCATE)

                                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4785 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    SMT. ANTAR BAI W/O PRATAP JI, AGED ABOUT 44
                               YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 113 MALHAR
                               COLONY DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    PREETI S/O PRATAP JI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                               MALHAR COLONY DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                         (SHRI ABHISHEK     RAJURKAR,     LEARNED   COUNSEL    FOR    THE
                         PETITIONERS.)

Signature Not Verified
                         AND
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 11-05-
2024 11:11:56
                                                             2

                         PRATAP JI S/O PURA JI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, GRAM
                         PAAT, TEHSIL UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI NARESH PIPLODIYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)


                               T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

This criminal revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 and 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, District Dewas in MJCR. No.45/2021 whereby the application filed under

Section 127 of Cr.P.C was partly allowed by increasing the maintenance amount awarded to the wife/Antarbai from Rs.700/- to Rs.10,000/- per month.

2. Learned counsel for the husband-Pratap submitted that since his client is paying a loan of Rs.29,000/- from his salary, the calculation should be done with only on the remaining amount of Rs.27,000/-. Further it is submitted that the husband is paying Rs.24,000/- towards the medical policy of wife Antarbai, therefore, counsel submitted that the maintenance amount increased by the trial Court be reduced to some extent.

3. Learned counsel for the wife Antarbai opposed the contentions and submitted that as per law wife is entitled to get 25% of whole salary since the monthly income of the husband is Rs.56,000/- she is entitled for Rs.14,000/- per month. So far as the loan is concerned the husband himself is residing in that house, hence in spite of loan amount, the wife should be awarded Rs.14000/- as maintenance. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by Division Bench of M.P. High Court in the case of Smt.

Roshni vs. Anand reported as AIR 2021 (NOC) 39 (M.P.) in support of his contentions.

4. Considering the rival submissions I have gone through the record. Certainly, the monthly salary of the husband is Rs.56,000/- as of today, and it should also be taken into consideration that learned trial Court, after considering all the perspectives increased the interim maintenance from Rs.700/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by learned Family Court.

5. So far as the revisional power of this Court is concerned, it is well settled legal position that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is not as that of an appellate Court, which is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding entered by the trial Court. Actually the jurisdiction of revisional Court has a limited scope. The revisional Court can interfere with the impugned order of subordinate Court only when it is unjust and unfair. In case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner.

6. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case o f Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra reported as (2012) 9 SCC 460 is

pertinent to quote here as under:-

"The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited

one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily..................."

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion in entirety as well as the material available on record, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. At this stage, both these revision petitions fails. Resultantly, they stand dismissed and the impugned order of the learned trial Court is affirmed.

9. Pending application, if any, also closed.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the case and this order shall not be come in the way of the learned trial Court while passing the final judgment.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi