Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs Smt. Avantibai on 14 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2700 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH S/O BHAGIRATH VERMA, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, IPS COLLEGE KE PICHHE RAJENDRA NAGAR
MARATHI MOHALLA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI DHARMENDRA SINGH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. AVANTIBAI W/O RAJESH VERMA, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK
HAAL MUKAM GRAM JHADMHOW TEHSIL AND
THANA JEERAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GAUTAM @ ASHU (MINOR) THROUGH U/G
MOTHER AVANTIBAI VERMA S/O RAJESH
VERMA, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, IN PRESENT
VILLAGE JHADMHOW, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
JEERAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BANWARI LAL YADAV - ADVOCATE)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard and perused the record.
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 23.03.2024 passed
by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Mandsaur, in MJCR
No.151/2022, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application
filed by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the
petitioner to pay of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.2,000/-
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 12 years prior as per Hindu Rights and customs.
Thereafter, the respondent has alleged that after lapse of few years, the
petitioner and his family members have harassed her mentally and tortured
physically, they demanded four wheeler and they have taken her golden and
silver ornaments, harassed her and finally ousted her from the house. Hence,
she started living separately in her maternal house and filed an application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court has
allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and awarded total
maintenance Rs.4,500/- per month (Rs.2,500/- in her favour and Rs.2,000/- in
her daughter's favour). Hence being aggrieved the petitioner has filed 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. The
petitioner is ready to keep the respondents with him and maintain them but the
respondent no.1 did not come to the Court with clean hands. The learned Trial
Court has failed to consider the fact that respondents are living separately
without any valid reason. It is settled position of law that the proof of burden is
first placed upon the wife to prove that the means of her husband are sufficient
and she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, order of maintenance has
wrongly been passed and deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court
has wrongly awarded total Rs.4,500/- to the respondents as maintenance is on
higher side, hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5 . 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 school bus driver and having sufficient means of income. It is also
apparent that the wife is not able t o 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 and the
child. 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.
6. 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 Dutt 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."
7. 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 meager
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."
10. 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
sumathi
