Madhya Pradesh High Court
Teena vs Manoj on 18 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22756
1 CRR-1066-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1066 of 2024
TEENA
Versus
MANOJ
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Laad - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Divya Ajmera - learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act
r/w 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred being aggrieved by the order
dated 31.01.2024 passed in MJC No.67/2023 by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, West Nimar, Mandleshwar, M.P. whereby application for
maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
02. Facts of the case in brief are that the marriage was solemnized on
11.02.2008 between the revision petitioner and respondent and an application
for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred on
07.07.2022 i.e. after fourteen & half years of the marriage alleging cruelty
and neglect for maintenance and claimed an amount of Rs.15,000/- per
month as maintenance. It was asserted that the respondent/husband earns
Rs.60,000/- per month by working as Goldsmith and from the rental income.
03. The application was replied and the allegations of cruelty and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22756
2 CRR-1066-2024
neglect for maintenance were denied. It was stated that the petitioner/wife is
not willing to gave birth to the child. She did not cooperated in getting the
treatment and deprived the husband from becoming a father. The
petitioner/wife is not willing to live with the respondent/husband. She earns
sufficient income from the work of boutique whereas husband is a labourer
and earns Rs.5,000 - Rs.6,000/- per month anyhow.
04. The revision petitioner/wife examined herself as AW-1 and her
brother as AW-2 whereas respondent/husband examined himself as NAW-1.
Appreciating the evidence, the Family Court, West Nimar, Mandleshwar
recorded the finding that it is not proved that the petitioner/wife is unable to
maintain herself and also recorded the finding that it is not proved that she
was subjected to cruelty or she has sufficient reason to live separately and
rejected the application.
05. Challenging the legality of the order, this revision petition is
preferred on the ground that the Family Court, West Nimar, Mandleshwar
has not adverted to the apology tendered by the respondent/husband on
17.01.2019 and the acts of cruelty committed by the husband which forced
the wife to live in maternal home since 12 months and committed illegality
in rejecting the application for maintenance.
06. Counsel for the State/husband has supported the order of the
Family Court, West Nimar, Mandleshwar and prayed for dismissal of this
revision petition.
Heard.
07. As per the statement of Manoj (NAW-1), the petitioner/wife
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22756
3 CRR-1066-2024
resided with her for a period of 5-6 years since marriage which took place in
the year 2008 and thereafter she created problems and insisted to go to her
maternal home but this evidence is contrary to the Exhibit-P/1 executed by
the respondent/husband on 17.01.2019 in which it was mentioned that he will
not harass the petitioner/wife in future. The reply of the respondent reveals
that the respondent/wife could not conceive. But, failure in getting pregnant
cannot be blamed alone to one spouse. Respecting the marital ties for a
period of 15 years discloses that the wife is committed to the relationship and
the findings of the Family Court recorded in para 33 and 34 of the judgment
that it is not proved that the petitioner/wife is living in maternal home
without sufficient reasons and wife could not prove that she is unable to
moved in herself recorded are perverse. Thus, the findings of the Family
Court are set aside.
08. Para 21 of the testimony of Manoj (NAW-1) discloses that he is a
registered owner of Ertiga Car and earns income by using that car as
transport vehicle apart from the work of Goldsmith and the Family Court
has recorded the finding in para 37 that the respondent/husband is a person of
sufficient means and not disclosed the need in terms of the exact monetary
unit required for maintenance is not a ground to deny the wife from
maintenance. That amount may be quantified by the Court and assessing the
standard of life of the parties that amount is being quantified as Rs.6,000/-
per month.
09. Accordingly, the order of the Family Court, West Nimar,
Mandleshwar is set aside and this revision petition is partly allowed and it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22756
4 CRR-1066-2024
ordered that the respondent/husband shall pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- per
month as maintenance from the date of application i.e.07.07.2022 to the
revision petitioner/wife.
10. In view of the above, this revision petition is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
