Madhya Pradesh High Court
Payal vs Sandeep on 18 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22636
1 CRR-261-2023
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. 261 of 2023
PAYAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SANDEEP
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.Vibha Bharuka -Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This revision petition under section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2022
in MJCR No.40/2021 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar
whereby the claim of revision petitioner no.1 has been rejected and
only Rs.8,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of revision
petitioner no.2.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioner no.1 was married with
respondent on 21.05.2013 and revision petitioner no.2, a girl child,
was born on 01.03.2015. An application under section 125 of the
Cr..C, 1973 claiming maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22636
2 CRR-261-2023
petitioner no.1 and Rs.12,000/- for petitioner no.2 and a total sum of
Rs.37,000/- per month was claimed alleging negligence in
maintenance with a specific averment that respondent has entered
into marital tie up with another woman. The application was filed
on 06.02.2021.
3. The respondent/husband denied all the allegations of the
revision petitioner with specific averment that petitioner no.1 is
preparing for civil service and she is not willing to live with a ninth
class pass husband and has separated herself and the daughter from
the company of the respondent/husband. A false case has been filed
against the husband. The petitioner no.1 is a Post Graduate in Arts
stream and is a gold medalist being topper of the university. She is
not entitled for any maintenance. The husband is not earning as
stated by the revision petitioner.
4. The revision petitioner no.1 examined herself as AW/1
and her mother as AW/2 and adduced documents Ex.P/1 to P/76.
The respondent/husband examined himself as NAW/1 and his
maternal uncle Krishnakant as NAW/2 and adduced document
Ex.D/1 to D/4.
5. Appreciating the evidence, the Family Court recorded the
finding that the revision petitioner no.1 is living separately without
sufficient reason but further recorded the finding that the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22636
3 CRR-261-2023
has sufficient means to maintain her daughter but he is not
maintaining his daughter/petitioner no.2 since February, 2019 and
allowed the application partially as mentioned in para-1 of the
judgment. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that the
factum of crime no.137/2021 registered at police station Kanvan,
district Dhar has been overlooked by the Family Court. The factum
of second marriage has also been ignored and the amount of
maintenance for petitioner No.2 is on the lower side.
6. Heard.
7. Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned
order of the Family Court.
8. Perused the record.
9. Fact discloses that respondent/husband has filed an
application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
restitution of conjugal rights before the ADJ, Badnawar and the case
was registered in the Court of District Judge, Dhar, Camp at
Badnawar as case No.20A/2015 and the matter was settled on the
following terms:
'' ाथ या वप ी य द पढ़ाई करना चाहे तो उसक पढ़ाई म पूरा सहयोग
दान करे गा और प रवार के लोग भी सहायोग करगे और पढ़ाई के बारे म
कसी कार का ववाद नह ं करगे। वप ी ाथ के यहां रहकर ह पढ़ाई
करे गी और वप ी पढ़ाई के िलए समय-समय पर या पर ा के िलए
समय-समय पर आ जा सकती है ।''
10. The above factums discloses that respondent/husband
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22636
4 CRR-261-2023
and his family members were not cooperating in pursuing the studies
by the wife/revision petitioner no.1.
11. Para-17 of the reply of the respondent is to the effect that
he has 9th class education and the wife/petitioner no.1 is not desirous
to live with the husband who possesses only 9th standard education
but this reason is against his affidavit dated 03.08.2022 in which he
has disclosed his qualification as post graduate (MA). Otherwise
also, if petitioner N.1 was not desirous to live with the respondent
then she would not have proceeded further to complete the family
and give birth to a child and now the respondent/husband is neither
cooperating to the petitioner no.1 to pursue her career nor taking care
of his minor daughter since 2019. On the other hand he is
maintaining a car purchased from Patel Motors, Indore in January,
2022 and is posing himself as labourer. Accordingly, the finding of
the Family Court, Dhar that the revision petitioner no.1 is living
separately without any cause is recorded ignoring this vital aspect
and cannot be approved and it is concluded that the petitioner no.1 is
living separately for the reason that the respondent has committed
mental cruelty with the petitioner no.1 and further he did not care for
her maintenance also. The Family Court, Dhar has discussed the
financial capacity of the respondent in para-22 to 23 and 38 of the
judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22636
5 CRR-261-2023
12. In the light of the above, the respondent is also liable to
pay the maintenance to petitioner no.1 and that amount is quantified
as Rs.8,000/- per month and that amount shall be payable from the
date of application i.e. 06.02.2021.
13. Considering the finding recorded in para-34 of the
impugned order, the case for enhancement regarding petitioner no.2
is not made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is partially
allowed and the order of the Family Court, Dhar is modified to the
extent that the respondent shall pay to the petitioner no.1/wife an
amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of
application i.e. 06.02.2021.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
