Santosh vs Smt. Pooja
2024 Latest Caselaw 13351 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Santosh vs Smt. Pooja 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. 3594 of 2019

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SANTOSH S/O POONAMCHAND BARFA, AGED ABOUT 31
                         Y E A R S , VILLAGE LUNHERA MANAWAR    TEH.
                         MANAWAR DISTRCIT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                         (SHRI AKASH RATHI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    SMT. POOJA W/O SANTOSH BARFA, AGED ABOUT
                               30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SILVER HILL
                               COLONY DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    KRISHU THROUGH GUARDIAN SMT. POOJA W/O
                               SANTOSH BARFA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DHAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI M. I. ANSARI - ADVOCATE)

                               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 Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, District Dhar in MJCR No.53/2018 whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the respondent and awarded Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance in favour respondents (Rs.12,000/- to respondent no.1 and Rs.8,000/- to

Respondent no.2). Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2 . During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the learned trial Court has awarded maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month whereas the petitioner is working as Sepoy in Indian Army and earning a net salary of Rs.39,000/- per month. He is not having any additional income and he is also having his father and aged grand mother and he has to take care of their medical expenses. Applicant is willing to live with the respondent but the respondent is living separately on her own wish, she is operating a hostel at Dhar jointly with her sister and earning good amount of money. Hence, prays for reduction of the maintenance amount.

3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer, but he has also submitted that the trial Court has passed the order after considering each and every aspect of the case and the order is correct in the eyes of law and facts. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent after proper valuation of the source of income of the petitioner and in view of the settled propositions of law that the wife is also entitled to maintain the financial and social status in accordance with the financial status of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court and it is prayed that the petition may kindly be rejected.

4. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions I have gone through the record.

5. So far as the finding as to awarding maintenance is concerned, looking to the evidence available on record, it manifestly emerges that the petitioner himself has relinquished his wife without any reason. As the allegations regarding the fact that she is residing voluntarily with her sister is found baseless

in the eye of facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Now coming to the point of maintenance amount, learned trial Court in para-18 of the impugned judgment expressed that the petitioner/non-applicant is working as Sepoy in Indian Army, and thereby getting a salary of Rs.57,580/- per month in the year 2018. In spite of that learned trial Court has awarded 20,000/- as maintenance to respondents (Rs.12000/- to respondent no.1/wife and Rs.8000/- to respondent no.2/son)

7. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Choudhury Nee Nandy reported as AIR 2017 SC 2383 25% of total salary would be appropriate maintenance in favour of respondent no.1/wife, but looking to the fact that the petitioner is also made liable for maintenance of his child, father and grand mother, this Court is of the view that the maintenance awarded to respondent no.1/wife be reduced to some extent.

8. On this point, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Pandey vs. Manisha Pandey reported as 2020 Law Suit (M.P) 1098, by endorsing the aforesaid proposition has enunciated as under:-

"The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 2383), has held that 25% of the income of the husband would be just and proper and not more than that. So, apart from that when ex-parte order was passed in favour of the respondent/ wife, then learned trial Court should have awarded 25% of the net income of the petitioner/non-applicant as maintenance and not more than that. So, it is appropriate to reduce the awarded maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month which would be paid by the petitioner/non-applicant to the respondent/wife. The decisions in Deb Narayan

Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Haldar (AIR 2003 SC 3174) and Chandrakalabai Vs. Bhagwan Singh (2002 Cr.L.J. 3970) are not at all applicable in the case of petitioner/non- applicant."

9.Virtually Section 125 of Cr.P.C is a piece of socialistic legislation in order to improve the status of a destitute lady in society. Inherent and immanent idea behind the Section 125 of Cr.P.C is to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman, who left her matrimonial home. In order to determine the quantum, the Judge has to figure out what is required by the wife for maintaining the standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but it should be in accordance with the status of family.

10. Looking to the income of the petitioner, and the fact that respondent h a s also earning her own source of income, the maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- issued in favour of respondent no.1 seems to be on higher side. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that the maintenance amount awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 by the family Court is reduced from Rs.12,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of filing of affidavit. The maintenance amount of Rs.8000/- awarded in favour of respondent no.2/child does not warrant any interference as such total maintenance of Rs.18,000/- would be appropriate for respondent Nos. 1 &2.

11. Remaining part of the order of family Court shall remain intact. It is also clarified that the trial Court shall not be influenced by the impugned order as well as the order passed by this Court while passing the final order.

12. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action.

13. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi