Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandeep vs Smt. Archana 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. 3460 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANDEEP S/O RAJARAM ROKADE, AGED ABOUT 45
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: TEACHER GOVERNMENT JOB
INDORE AT PRESENT: KUSUMBIYA, TEHSIL
MAHESHWAR, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEPIKA RATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. ARCHANA W/O MANDEEP ROKADE, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE GRAM KHARADI
AT PRESENT- VILLAGE NANDRA, TEHSIL
MAHESHWAR, DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. POOJA KUMRE, ADVOCATE)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 08.06.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge , Family Court, West
Nimar, Mandleshwar, in MJCR No.26/2022, whereby the learned Principal
Judge has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by
awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the
respondent/wife.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Family
Court has wrongly awarded the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondent/wife. Since the mother of the petitioner is also dependent upon the
petitioner and the said fact has been mentioned in para 39 of the impugned
judgment. The petitioner is liable to maintain her mother. The amount of
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- seems to be on higher side, which should be
reduced to some extent. It is also submitted that if the income of the petitioner
is increased in future, the respondent will be entitled to get the increased
maintenance by filing an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. On these
grounds, he prayed that the maintenance awarded to the respondent may be
reduced.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
contentions and submitted that since the petitioner is earning Rs.44,920/- per
month, the respondent is entitled to get maintenance 1/4 portion of his income
of petitioner. The learned trial Court has rightly awarded the maintenance,
hence, it should not be reduced in any way. Therefore, the petition filed by the
petitioner is required to be rejected.
4. In view of the contentions made by both parties, facts and
circumstances of the case and also looking to the admitted fact that the mother
of the petitioner is depended upon the petitioner, the petition is partly allowed
and the impugned order of learned Principal Judge is modified to the extent that
the respondent shall pay Rs.9,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/- per month to the
respondent/wife. The remaining portion of the impugned order does not warrant
any interference.
5. Accordingly, with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
