Apoorv Saxena vs Smt. Nikita on 3 December, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

1 CRR-4193-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4193 of 2023
APOORV SAXENA
Versus
SMT. NIKITA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Choudhary, counsel for the respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2724 of 2023
APOORV SAXENA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. NIKITA SAXENA (SHRIVASTAVA) W/O APOORV SAXENA
Appearance:
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Choudhary, counsel for the respondent.

Heard on: 19.11.2025
Delivered On:03.12.2025
ORDER

In both these revision petitions parties are the same and the challenge is the order of maintenance warded in favour of respondent/wife. Accordingly both the revision petitions are being disposed off simultaneously.

2. Necessary facts leading to the present petitions are that respondent no.1 in both the revision petitions was married to the revision petitioner on 12.05.2013 as per the Hindu customs and rituals solemnized at Grand Hotel,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

2 CRR-4193-2023 Ujjain M.P. Respondent no.2 was born on 05.02.2014 at Ujjan out of the wedlock. Respondent no.2 is residing with respondent no.1 and is studying. An application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred on 06.04.2021 claiming Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of Respondent No.1/wife and Rs.20,000/- per month in favour of respondent no.2 alleging inability to maintain themselves, neglect of maintenance and sufficiency of means of husband/revision petitioner. It was submitted that revision petitioner works in I.T. Company and has deserted the respondent from the Month of August, 2020 for no reason and respondents are bound to live at parental house situated at 14, MIG Extension, Indira Nagar, Agar Road, Ujjain.

3. The application of maintenance was opposed with allegations that respondent no.1 intimated him that she was willing to marry with one Pratap Ajmera but, under the pressure of her parents, she entered into marry with the revision petitioner and respondent no.1 accepted Pratap Ajmera as her husband and will live further life with Pratap Ajmera and is residing presently with Pratap Ajmera. She is not taking proper care of respondent no.2. Her behaviour towards the revision petitioner was hateful. She is living separately without sufficient cause. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Respondent No.1 examined herself as PW-1 one Ishan Shrivastave as PW-2 and adduced the documents Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/4. Revision petitioner examined himself as DW-1.

5. Vide order dated 19.02.2022, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

3 CRR-4193-2023 was awarded as interim maintenance in favour of revision petitioner no.2 and after appreciating the evidence vide order dated 04.08.2023, an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent no.1/wife and an amount of Rs.10,,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent no.2 as final maintenance.

6. The respondent No1/1 wife preferred another application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain on 26.07.2021 claiming various reliefs and also prayed for interim relief under Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and vide order dated 11.07.2022 in MJCR No.254/2021, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded as interim maintenance to be payable from 26.07.2021 in favour of respondent no.2/minor son with further precaution that if any amount is being received by respondent no.2 then the amount shall be adjusted and further granted the relief that revision petitioner shall not cause any Domestic Violence Act against respondent no.1 and 2.

7. The aforesaid order the learned JMFC was affirmed by the 9th Additional Session Judge, Ujjian vide order dated 08.04.2023 in CRA no.134/2022 and CRR No.2724/2022 has been preferred challenging the order dated 08.04.2022 in MJCR No.354/2021 by JMFC, Ujjain.

8. CRR No.4093/2023 is preferred challenging the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in CRA No.134/2022.

9. Heard.

10. Perused the record.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

4 CRR-4193-2023

11. The respondent has opposed the revision petition.

12. Firstly, this Court is dealing in CRR No.2724/2023. Monetary relief is granted in favour of respondent no.2/minor son and that amount is subject to adjustment. Accordingly, no illegality has been committed by learned trial Court restraining from committing the domestic violence act as it is prohibitory in nature and that interim order also does not suffers from any illegality. Accordingly CRR No.2724/2023 is hereby dismissed.

13. Now, came to CRR No.4193/2023. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that the impugned order is passed overwhelming evidence in the form of Call details and Messages pointed towards the fact that respondent no.1 had just a friendship with Pratap Ajmera. The learned family Court further ignored the admission of respondent no.1 regarding her close relations with Pratap Ajmera. The allegations of the wife are vague. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the photos Ex.A/1 are of college time and the suggestions given by the revision petitioner in para no.22 of his cross-examination whereas the age seems to be of much more than the college students. The learned trial Court ignored the endeavours of husband that were made to empower the wife by facilitating her in pursuing B.ed degree. The learned trial Court ignored that respondent no.1 tells a lie regarding her income and the circumstances in which she left the husband. The needs have not been proved to substantiate the amount that has been awarded in favour of respondent.

14. Heard.

15. Counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on Bheekha Ram vs.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

5 CRR-4193-2023 Goma Devi and Others: 1999 SCC Online Raj 265, Lalit Lazarus vs. Lavina; 1979 MPLJ 184, Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt.); (2003) 11 SCC 303 and Dr. Sarika Jain vs. Dr. Abhisehk Jain: 2025:MPHC-JBP:1644.

16. In the case of Dr. Sarika Jain (supra) and it is held that evidence of adultery is usually indirect. In Bheeka Ram (supra) , it is held that "the right to be maintained by the husband stems for performance of marital duty. It is only when the Court inter alia comes to the finding that the wife claiming that she could be awarded maintenance. When it is found that the wife declines to live with husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill -treatment by the husband, wife is not entitled to maintenance". Similarly, in Lalit Lazarus (supra), has been preferred in sport of adultery and Deb Narayan Halder (supra) has been relied in support of the proposition that wife left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground, is not entitled for maintenance.

17. Before proceeding further in this case, provision of Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C., 1973 is being reproduced as below:-

4. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

18. In Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973, the expressions, living in an adultery denotes a course of adulterous act more or less continuous and not occasional. A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and return back but to normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery. Further, mere affection

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

6 CRR-4193-2023 without physical relations, does not constitute adultery. Adultery means, sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations then it is not sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery as held in Amit Kumar Khodake vs. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali; 2025 SCC OnLine MP 76.

19. In this case, circumstances brought in para nos.22, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 41 to 49, 50 and 53 of cross-examination of PW-1 as well as the documents NA-3 to NA-8, may be termed at the most that she has some intimacy with her friend, but that does not demonstrate that she was "living in adultery" and learned trial Court has rightly recorded in para no.26 of the judgment that revision petitioner/husband could not discharge the burden that respondent wife is "living in adultery". The wife spent mental life with the husband at the work places of husband situated at Pune (Maharashtra), Mumbai (Maharashtra) and Delhi. The dispute arose after 07 years of marriage and that period is when the Covid-19 Pandemic was at its extreme peak and the effect of Covid-19 Pandemic reflected on many persons with different angles and the suspicion of husband regarding the fidelity of wife relates to that period in which he has alleged that respondent/wife was found in chatting with Pratap Ajmera as disclosed earlier. The circumstances brought on record through material are not sufficient to infer that wife committed adultery or at least, it can be said that wife is "living in adultery"

then revision petitioner has stated in para no.22 of his deposition examined as NEW-1 that he will not accept the respondent as wife then there is no question to infer that wife is living separately without sufficient reasons.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

7 CRR-4193-2023

20. Now, come to the quantum of maintenance, the learned trial Court has assessed the income of the revision petitioner as Rs.1,80,000/- per month and income of respondent/wife is Rs.14,291/- per month by working as teacher in New Oxford Junior College, Ujjain. Her qualification BCA, B.ed. Educational qualification (as per para no.16 of PW-1) alone cannot be translated into earning capacity when the matter relates to a woman after marriage and she has to sacrifice significantly for looking after the minor child also. Accordingly, there is no reason to assess the income of the respondent no.1/wife beyond the pay slip of Rs.14,291/- brought on record.

21. Further, amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent no.1. and amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent no.2 cannot be said an exaggerated amount specially when the maintenance amount has been awarded from the date of order i.e. from 04.08.2023 in place of date of application i.e. 06.04.2020. Since, there is no revision on behalf of respondent/wife, so this Court is not interfering with the order of maintenance to be payable from the date of order, but the present revision petition No.4193/2023 also does not succeed having no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

22. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected revision petition.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE

amit

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35414

8 CRR-4193-2023