Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hukmichand vs Smt. Kalawati on 28 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 28 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6168 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
HUKMICHAND S/O RAMESHWAR CHOUHAN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
GRAM PIPLU TEH. BADNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY R.R. BHATNAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. KALAWATI W/O HUKMICHAND, AGED ABOUT 38
YEAR S , BANDICHODE MARG NOGAUN TEH. AND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY NONE)
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 26.11.2019
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Dhar, in MJC
No.229/2018, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the petitioner to
pay of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife 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 in the year 1998 as per Hindu Rights and Customs.
Thereafter, the respondent was suffering and facing the serious ailment of
tuberculosis (TB) and due to the treatment of the said ailment, the petitioner has
left her in her matrimonial house and later on after considering the fact that the
she has started living separately and hence, he has solemnized second marriage.
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.4000/- per month in her and her daughter's 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 she has filed the application for maintenance after the lapse of
approximately 20 years. The petitioner has no sufficient means of income. The
learned Family Court has wrongly awarded total Rs.4000/- to the respondent as
maintenance is on higher side, hence, prays for setting aside the impugned
order.
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.
Solely, on the ground that the application has been filed by delay of
approximately 20 years, the respondent/wife cannot be dis-entitled from getting
the maintenance. 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
