Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohan Dixit vs Smt. Pragati Rashinkar (Dixit) on 24 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
1 CRR-6325-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4888 of 2024
SMT. PRAGATI RASHINKAR (DIXIT)
Versus
ROHAN DIXIT
&
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6325 of 2024
ROHAN DIXIT
Versus
SMT. PRAGATI RASHINKAR (DIXIT)
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra- Advocate for the applicant/husband.
Shri Anmol Khedkar - Advocate for the respondent/wife.
ORDER
By this common order criminal revision No.6325/2024 filed by
husband shall also be decided.
2. Both criminal revisions have been filed against order dated
24/08/2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior
in MJCR No.20155/2019 by which the wife (applicant in criminal
revision No.4888/2024) has been granted monthly maintenance at the
rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
2 CRR-6325-2024
3. Criminal Revision No.4888/2024 has been filed by wife Smt.
Pragati Rashinkar (Dixit) for enhancement of maintenance amount
whereas criminal revision No.6325/2024 has been filed by the husband
Rohan Dixit for setting aside the order of maintenance amount of
Rs.8,000/- per month.
Criminal Revision No.4888/2024:-
4. Seeking enhancement of maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per
month awarded by impugned order, it is submitted by counsel for
applicant that Court below has committed a material illegality by
awarding the monthly maintenance from the date of order. In fact, in the
light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
V/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 maintenance amount should
have been awarded from the date of filing of application.
5. It is further submitted that respondent/husband has deliberately
not filed pay-slip whereas he is working as Assistant Engineer in
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board. By referring to orders dated
10/07/2024 and 25/07/2024, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that
when respondent/husband was directed to file his pay-slip, then he did
not do the same and expressed that his department has not given the pay-
slip and accordingly, by order dated 25/07/2024, it was observed by Trial
Court that since, respondent/husband is not interested in filing his pay-
slip, therefore, an adverse reference will be drawn. It is submitted by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
3 CRR-6325-2024
counsel for applicant that as per Service Rules, respondent/husband is
working on the post of Assistant Engineer and the pay-scale is
Rs.56,100-1,44,300/-. The applicant has also filed a copy of information
received from Income Tax Department, according to which, the gross
income of respondent/husband for the year 2022-2023 was
Rs.12,35,123/-.
6. Furthermore, even according to affidavit filed by
respondent/husband, he had admitted that his monthly income is 82,872/-
However, under the head of liabilities, it was further claimed by
respondent/husband that he is making a payment of EMI of Rs.13,600/-
towards repayment of loan of Rs.6,20,000/- which he had taken from
SBI. It is submitted that once a person has taken loan from the bank, then
it is clear that he has already received the amount in advance and,
therefore, EMI which is being paid by husband towards repayment of
loan cannot be a statutory deduction. The voluntarily deductions cannot
be considered for calculating the take home salary. It is further submitted
that by order dated 22/10/2019 the matter was sent for reconciliation and
as per the report of councillor, the reconciliation had failed and
respondent/husband had admitted that he would return the educational
certificates of applicant but later on when an application under Section
91 of C.P.C. was filed, then a submission was made by
respondent/husband that he is not in possession of the documents and
accordingly, by order dated 26/04/2023, application was rejected by Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
4 CRR-6325-2024
Court by observing that applicant can obtain duplicate copies of the
certificates. It is submitted that on account of withholding of her
educational certificates by respondent/husband, applicant is not also in a
position to do any job and for the last five years she is sitting idle without
any source of income and any job.
Criminal Revision No.6325/2024:-
7. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent/wife is
an educated girl and while she was residing in Chhattisgarh alongwith
applicant, she was working as a part-time Lecturer. It is further submitted
that respondent/wife has deserted applicant without any reasonable
reason and, therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance. It is further
submitted that applicant had filed an application under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act. However, it was fairly conceded that after the said
case was transferred to the competent Court at Gwalior, applicant did not
appear and application filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was
dismissed in default by order dated 21/12/2021. It is further submitted
that respondent/wife was medically sick even on the date of marriage and
applicant himself had got treated, which is evident from indoor reference
slip Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6. It is further submitted that applicant had
specifically mentioned in his reply that he is ready to keep
respondent/wife with him but respondent/wife has deliberately not joined
the company of applicant, therefore, in view of second provision of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
5 CRR-6325-2024
Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. respondent/wife is not entitled for maintenance
amount.
8. In reply to submission made by counsel for applicant that
husband is ready to keep his wife with him, it is submitted by counsel for
applicant that applicant in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination has
admitted that he has already filed petition for divorce which clearly
shows that applicant is not ready to keep respondent/wife with him.
Furthermore, applicant never filed an application before the Trial Court
thereby expressing his intention to keep respondent/wife with him and
never obtained the order from the Trial Court in that regard.
9. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that he did not
pursue his application filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act
because a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC was already
instituted.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Effect of non-prosecution of petition under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act.
11. So far as the non-prosecution of application under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that when
the said proceedings were pending at Korba (Chhattisgarh) applicant was
prosecuting the same. The moment it was transferred by Supreme Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
6 CRR-6325-2024
to Gwalior, he did not appear and got the application dismissed for want
of prosecution. Had it been a case that he had withdrawn an application
on the pretext that since, FIR under Section 498-A of IPC has been
lodged, therefore, he would not like to press the application, then the
submission made by counsel for applicant with regard to non-prosecution
of proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act could have been
accepted but merely because the case was transferred to Gwalior, if
applicant decided not to prosecute his application, then the explanation
given by counsel for applicant with regard to non-prosecution of his
application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be accepted
and accordingly, it is hereby rejected.
Whether the wife is residing separately without any reasonable
reason or not?
12. The wife in her application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
has specifically stated about the demand of dowry as well as cruelty
meeted out to her. Further, the husband himself had filed an application
under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, but he thereafter did not
prosecute the same. Furthermore, the adamant attitude of husband is
clear from the fact that in spite of directions given by the Supreme Court
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) as well as the orders passed by the trial
Court he had refused to file his pay slip.
13. Furthermore, when a specific question was put to the husband
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
7 CRR-6325-2024
as to whether he is willing to take his wife back, then it was replied by
husband in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination that he has already
filed a petition for divorce. Thus, it is clear that the wife has made out a
case to show that she is residing separately on account of cruelty meeted
out to her. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for husband that
the wife is residing separately without any reasonable reason is
misconceived and is hereby rejected. Thus, it is clear that court below has
rightly held that the wife is entitled for quantum of maintenance amount.
Quantum of maintenance amount:-
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has held as
under:-
72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance
proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines
in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142
of the Constitution of India:
72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be
applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family
Court/District Court/Magistrate's Court concerned, as the case may
be, throughout the country;
72.2. (b ) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be
required to file a concise application accompanied with the
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
8 CRR-6325-2024
72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the
Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks.
The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for
submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with
the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this
purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off
the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful
and contumacious in delaying the proceedings
[Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822 : 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 1915] . On the failure to file the affidavit within the
prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the
application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by
the applicant and the pleadings on record;
72.4. (d ) The above format may be modified by the court
concerned, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be
left to the judicial discretion of the court concerned to issue
necessary directions in this regard.
72.5. (e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits
of Disclosure, any further information is required, the court
concerned may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof.
72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration
made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek
permission of the court to serve interrogatories, and seek
production of relevant documents from the opposite party under
Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the
provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act,
1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party
is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court
may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary,
since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
9 CRR-6325-2024
personal knowledge of the party concerned.
72.7. (g ) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in
the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any
relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light,
the party may submit an amended/supplementary affidavit, which
would be considered by the court at the time of final
determination.
72.8. (h ) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance
and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false
statements and misrepresentations are made, the court may
consider initiation of proceeding under Section 340 CrPC, and for
contempt of court.
72.9. (i) In case the parties belong to the economically weaker
sections ("EWS"), or are living below the poverty line ("BPL"), or
are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the affidavit would
be dispensed with.
72.10. (j) The Family Court/District Court/Magistrate's Court
concerned must make an endeavour to decide the IA for interim
maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six
months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been
filed before the court.
72.11. (k ) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made
available in every Family Court.
15. Thus, it is clear that the parties are required to file their
affidavits specifically pointing out their financial status. Although, the
trial court by order dated 10/07/2024 had directed the husband to file his
pay slip, but it was not done.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
10 CRR-6325-2024
16. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other
option but to do the guesswork. The husband in his affidavit filed as per
the directions of Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) had
disclosed that his monthly salary is Rs.82,872/-. The wife has filed
I.A.No.5454/2025 for taking the information given by Income Tax
Department with regard to gross income of husband according to which
in the year 2022-23, the gross income of husband was Rs.12,35,123. The
employer of husband must be deducting certain amount towards statutory
deductions. Although, the husband has claimed that he is making
payment of EMI of Rs.13,600/- per month on account of fact that he had
taken a loan of Rs.6,20,000/- but as loan amount was already received by
husband in advance, therefore, he is making repayment EMI of
Rs.13,600/-, then the same cannot be considered for adjudicating the take
home salary.
17. Since, the husband has not filed the copy of salary slip,
therefore, this Court is not in a position to actually calculate the
compulsory deductions, which are being made from his salary.
Therefore, by doing the guesswork, it is held that 10% of the annual
gross income, which comes to Rs.1,23,512/- must be deducted from his
annual gross income by way of statutory deductions. Thus, net take home
annual income of husband comes to Rs.11,11,611/- and, therefore, his
monthly take home salary would come to Rs.92,634/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
11 CRR-6325-2024
18. It is a well established principle of law that deserted wife has a
right to enjoy the same status, which otherwise she would have enjoyed
in her matrimonial house. Husband is working as an Assistant Engineer
in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board. The Husband himself had
declared his monthly income as Rs.82,872/- whereas this Court has come
to a conclusion that in the year 2022-23 his monthly take home salary
was Rs.92,634/-.
19. Under these circumstances, this court is of considered opinion
that the wife is entitled for monthly maintenance at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- and accordingly, maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- as
awarded by Court below is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per month.
Whether the maintenance amount is payable from the date of
application or from the date of order?
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has held that
maintenance amount is to be paid from the date of application and not
from the date of order.
21. In the present case, the trial court has awarded the monthly
maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- from the date of order. However, no
reasons have been assigned for awarding such maintenance amount from
the date of order. From the order-sheets of the trial court, it is clear that
application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 19/08/2019 and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
12 CRR-6325-2024
husband appeared before family court on 22/10/2019. The application for
grant of interim maintenance amount was filed on 10/01/2020.
Thereafter, the case was adjourned on numerous occasions for filing
reply to the application. Ultimately, on 20/12/2021, husband did not
appear.
22. Since, the case was fixed for arguments on the question of grant
of interim maintenance amount and accordingly, husband was proceeded
ex-parte. On 04/01/2022, husband filed an application under Order 9
Rule 7 CPC and on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- ex-parte order dated
20/12/2021 was recalled and the case was again fixed for consideration
of application for grant of interim maintenance amount. Again time was
granted at the request of counsel for husband. On 06/05/2022, husband or
his counsel did not appear and accordingly, ex-parte arguments were
heard on the question of grant of interim maintenance amount. By order
dated 06/05/2022 interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- was
granted from the date of order. It appears that thereafter, husband did not
pay interim maintenance amount regularly and repeatedly time was
granted to pay arrears of interim maintenance amount. Ultimately, again
on 26/09/2022 husband was once again proceeded ex-parte. On
29/11/2022, husband again filed an application for setting aside ex-parte
proceedings and on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- the ex-parte
proceedings against husband were set aside. On 15/02/2023, an amount
of Rs.20,000/- was paid by way of part payment of arrears of interim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
13 CRR-6325-2024
maintenance amount. Again husband did not pay the arrears regularly.
On 16/06/2023, examination-in-chief of wife was recorded but her cross-
examination was deferred at the request of husband and the case was
fixed for 16/08/2023. On 16/08/2023, wife was present and initially
husband did not appear, but later on he appeared and an observation was
made by trial court that there appears to be some possibility of
reconciliation and accordingly, the case was adjourned. On 18/12/2023,
the husband did not appear at 1 PM, 1:45 PM and 3 PM. Ultimately, he
appeared at 3:30 PM and made a statement that it was agreed upon
between the parties that Rs.12,00,000/- would be given by way of full
and final settlement and he is having an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in
case if any petition for divorce by mutual consent is filed, then the entire
amount would be paid on the date when the statement for the second time
would be recorded.
23. In reply, it was submitted by wife that parties had agreed for
full and final payment of Rs.15,00,000/- which was to be paid by
September and since the husband has not respected his words, therefore,
now she does not want to compromise the matter and accordingly, the
case was fixed for 21/02/2024 for cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that
it is the husband who wasted the time of trial court and had deliberately
not appeared on multiple occasions. As a result, ex-parte proceedings
were drawn against him, which were specifically set aside. Thus, it is
clear that husband has failed to make out any exceptional circumstance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
14 CRR-6325-2024
warranting grant of maintenance amount from the date of order.
24. The trial court committed a material illegality by awarding
maintenance amount from the date of order and not from the date of
application.
Whether husband is in possession of educational certificates of his
wife or not?
25. It is submitted by counsel for wife that in the reconciliation
proceedings, which took place on 22/10/2019, husband had agreed to
return the educational certificates of his wife, but later on when an
application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed then, he took a
somersault, and claimed that he is not in possession of educational
certificates of wife and she may obtain duplicate certificates and husband
is ready to bear the expenses for the same.
26. It is submitted that husband may be directed to return the
educational certificates of wife because in absence of educational
certificates, she is not able to secure any job.
27. In view of the admission made by husband before councillor on
22/10/2019, it is directed that the husband shall return original
educational certificates of wife within a period of one month from today
or else he himself would obtain the duplicate copies of educational
certificates and would handover to his wife within a period of two
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9067
15 CRR-6325-2024
months from today.
28. Accordingly, the order dated 24/08/2024 passed by Additional
Principal Judge Family Court, Gwalior in MJCR No. 20155/2019, is
hereby modified and it is directed that wife/Smt. Pragati Rashinkar
(Dixit) is entitled for monthly maintenance amount at the rate of
Rs.30,000/- per month. The aforesaid amount shall be payable from the
date of filing of application i.e. 19/08/2019.
29. Needless to mention that if any maintenance amount under the
head of interim maintenance has been paid by husband, then it shall be
adjustable.
30. The arrears of maintenance amounts shall be payable within a
period of three months from today.
31. With aforesaid modification and directions, Criminal Revision
No.4888/2024 filed by wife Smt. Pragati Rashinkar (Dixit) is hereby
allowed and Criminal Revision No. 6325/2024 filed by husband, Rohan
Dixit, is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
