Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chanchal Patel vs Smt. Hiramani on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21491
1 CRR-3340-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3340 of 2023
CHANCHAL PATEL
Versus
SMT. HIRAMANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamlesh Mandloi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Sinnarkar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 read
with section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is preferred being
aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2023 in MJC R/No.177/2022 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, District Dhar and an amount of Rs.15,000/-
per month has been awarded to the respondent no.2 minor daughter as
maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 from the date of
application i.e. 21.11.2022.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that marriage of the revision petitioner
with the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 23.04.2023 and minor daughter
respondent no.2 was born out of their wed lock. There was a dispute between
the revision petitioner and the respondent no.1 and an application under
section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred on 21.11.2022 alleging
negligence in maintenance by wife and minor daughter. Application has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21491
2 CRR-3340-2023
submitting that they are not capable of maintaining themselves whereas
petitioner/husband is working in Artillery Wing of Indian Army and earns
75,000/- per month. Application was contested by the revision petitioner
husband and the trial court rejected the application in respect of respondent
no.1 wife recording the reason that wife is living separately without sufficient
cause but awarded an amount of maintenance in favour of the respondent
no.2 minor daughter to the tune as mentioned in the para-1 of the judgment.
3. Challenging the same, the revision petition is preferred.
4. Heard.
5. Counsel for the respondent opposes the revision petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. Counsel for the respondent has referred para-23 and 26 of the
judgment and also mentioned that revision petitioner has been retired from
the post of Havaldar from the Indian Army and now he is getting pension as
Rs.25,000/- per month. Para-23 and 26 of the judgment relates to the
respondent no.1 and she has not been granted maintenance and those referred
paras has no relations with the relief claimed by the revision petitioner. At
the time of order there was a finding of trial court that salary of the revision
petitioner was Rs.75,000/- and on that count the order of the trial court
granting the maintenance does not suffers from any illegality and perversity.
It cannot be said that it is on higher side considering the needs of a minor
daughter regarding education and other requirement. Factum of change in
circumstance is admissible under section 128 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this
criminal revision have no substances and is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21491
3 CRR-3340-2023
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
