Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aarti vs Bharat on 21 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
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1766 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. AARTI W/O BHARAT MOOLCHANDANI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
1404, DWARKAPURI COLONY, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MASTER JANAK S/O BHARAT MOOLCHANDANI
THROUGH LEGAL GUARDIAN AARTI W/O
B H A R AT MOOLCHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 1404
DWARKAPURI COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SULABH SAMAIYA, ADVOCATE )
AND
BHARAT S/O RATAN MOOLCHANDANI, AGED ABOUT 38
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: CATERERS AND DECORATES
175, SHREE KRISHNA AVENUE, FLAT NO. 102,
KHANDWA NAKA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY NONE)
.......................................................................................................................................
HEARD ON:10.05.2024
DELIVERED ON:21.05.2024
This revision petition was heard and the court pronounce the following:
ORDER
1. The present revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the
learned 2nd Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Indore whereby the learned
trial Court has dismissed the application filed by petitioner/wife and awarded
maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of petitioner no.2/son.
2 . Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 13.07.2003 as per Hindu customs, Rights and
rituals. As per the allegations of petitioner, soon after the marriage, the
respondent and his family members have demanded dowry of Rs.10/-lacs and
due to non-fulfillment of the same, they harnessed the petitioner physically and
mentally. Due to the said harassment, the petitioner wife started to reside
separately since 23.08.2013. She has also made a complaint before Mahila
Police Station on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, she has filed an application under
Section 125 of Cr.PC. before the learned family Court for awarding
maintenance of Rs.26000/- per month, but the learned trial Court has dismissed
the application with regard to petitioner no.1 and awarded only Rs.3000/- per
month in favour of petitioner no.2/son. Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence of income of respondent and has
discarded the version of petitioner wrongly while rejecting the application filed
by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs.3000/- awarded in
favour of son of the petitioner is on lesser side and non awarding of
maintenance in favour of petitioner is very unjust. It is further submitted that the
respondent is having sufficient means and source of income, he is indulged in
the business caters and decorators and property broker and earning
approximately Rs.80000/- per month, but the learned trial Court has neither
consider the income of the respondent nor the cruelty so committed upon the
petitioner and discarded the submissions of petitioner wrongly. Hence, it is
prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the petitioner/wife
may also be granted maintenance.
On the other hand, no one is appeared on behalf of the respondent even
after service or notice.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. In view of the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner, I have
gone through the record, it emerged that the petitioner No. 1/wife has not
lodged any FIR regarding demand of dowry or cruelty and she has already
admitted this fact in her cross-examination. Further, it is also apparent that to
prove the income of respondent on higher side, the petitioner could not
produce any cogent evidence even her statement itself are contradictory
because on the one hand, she stated that the respondent is in business and on
the other hand, she stated that the respondent is earning by job and working on
the pot of manager. The findings of learned trial Court appears to be just and
proper that the petitioner No. 1/wife is residing separately from the respondent
without any reason, hence, she is not entitled for maintenance.
5 . So far as the enhancement of petitioner No. 2 is concerned, after
considering every aspect of the case, the learned trial Court adjudicated monthly
income of the respondent at collectorate rate i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month and
awarded the maintenance of Rs.3000/- in favour of petitioner No. 2/son from
the date of filing of application.
6. 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 Courts below only when it is unjust and unfair. In
case where the order of learned trial as well as appellate 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.
7. On this aspect, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sharad
Dubey & Ors. vs. Mahesh Gupta & Ors. 2005 (2) MPJR 71, is worth to
refer here:-
"The jurisdiction of revisional Court is limited. The
revisional Court can interfere with the impugned order of
subordinate Court only when it is unjust and unfair. The
examination of the record is limited in scope. In a case
where the order of inferior court does not suffer from any
infirmity merely because of equitable considerations of
revisional Court is not competent to call upon the inferior
Court to reconsider the matter."
8. In terms of the revisional jurisdiction in examining the orders passed
by trial Court, the following excerpt of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the landmark judgement of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra reported as
(2012) 9 SCC 460 is also propitious to reproduce here under:-
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an
inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to
the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
There has to be a well-founded error and it may not
be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
which upon the face of it bears a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in accordance with
law. If one looks into the various judgments of this
Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These
are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative.
Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one
and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of
the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against
an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to
keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction
itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. ............"
09. 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 cases of
Sharad Dubey (supra) & Amit Kapoor (supra), this Court does not find any
illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned
appellate Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
12. As such, this revision petition filed by the petitioner fails. Resultantly,
the present petition is dismissed and the impugned order is hereby affirmed.
13. Pending application, if any, also closed.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
