Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Heena vs Jaspalsingh Saluja on 14 October, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29531
1 CRR-2986-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2986 of 2023
SMT. HEENA AND OTHERS
Versus
JASPALSINGH SALUJA
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Garg - advocate for the applicants.
Shri Anil Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Reserved on - 12.09.2024
Delivered on - .14.10.2024
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 21.3.2023,
passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-
Indore whereby the learned Court has partly allowed the application filed by
applicants and awarded maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month in favour of
applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2000/- in favour of applicant No. 2/daughter.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that earlier the
respondent was employed in the Diask Park and was getting Rs.45,000/- and
now he is working as a Chartered Accountant and his income is Rs. 70,000/-.
Therefore, the learned Court has committed error by awarding only Rs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29531
2 CRR-2986-2023
5000/- as maintenance in favour of the applicant No.1, hence, it is prayed
that Rs.30,000/- may be awarded as maintenance.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer by
submitting that the applicant was working in Dias Park but now his is
working in Vijay Stationary and at present his salary is only Rs. 20,000/- and
he has taken loan from his friends and his old parents are also depend on
him. The applicant is also an employed woman.Therefore, the order of
learned Family Court requires no interference, hence, the petition filed by
the applicants may be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. The contention of respondent regarding that he has left the job of
Chartered Accountant and started working in Vijay Stationery and is getting
Rs. 20,000/- is concerned, actually the avernment of husband that he has
changed his job is having no meaning as he is capable to earn higher amount
as a Chartered Accountant. Once it is proved that the husband is having the
ability to earn a good amount, on the basis of changing job, he cannot be
eschewed to give sufficient maintenance to his wife and child.
6. On this aspect the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in the case
of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) LawSuit(SC)314,
reads as under:
"Having stated the principle, we would have proceeded to
record our consequential conclusion. But, a significant
one, we cannot be oblivious of the asseverations made by
the appellant. It has been asserted that the respondent had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29531
3 CRR-2986-2023
taken voluntary retirement after the judgment dated
17.2.2012 with the purpose of escaping the liability to pay
the maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner."
7. In view of the aforesaid, even though the husband has changed his
job, he is liable to maintain his wife and child.
8. So far as the amount awarded to his wife as Rs. 5000/- is concerned,
the learned Family Court considering all aspects decided the maintenance
amount in favour of wife as Rs. 5000/-. Accordingly, it does not require any
interference. However, the amount awarded to the child is concerned, only
Rs. 2000/- cannot be said to be proper in view of the recent expenditures on
children, hence, in view of the evidence available on record, the amount
awarded in favour of child/applicant No. 2 appears too meager and it should
be enhanced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/-.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed and respondent is
directed to pay the enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month in
favour of applicant No. 2(till the age of majority). So far as the maintenance
awarded to the applicant No. 1 is concerned, it does not warrant any
interference. Remaining part of the order passed by learned Family Court
shall remain intact.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29531
4 CRR-2986-2023
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
