[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan vs Smt. Priya on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35615
1 CRR-5331-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5331 of 2025
PAWAN
Versus
SMT. PRIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shubhangi Bundela - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 read with Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred being
aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2022 in MJCR No.439/2023 by first
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby awarded the
amount of Rs.12,500/- per month in favour of respondent no.1/wife and
Rs.7,500/- per month has been awarded in favour of respondent no.2/minor
girl child under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 from the date of application i.e.
18.04.2023.
2. Facts in brief are that respondent no.1 was married to revision
petitioner on 16.02.2016 and respondent no.2 was born out of the wedlock
on 25.08.2017. Revision petitioner is Lansnayak in the Indian Army and has
been posted at various places.
4. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35615
2 CRR-5331-2025
18.04.2023 seeking Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance alleging neglect
in maintenance after the birth of girl child, harassment and inability to
maintain themselves and sufficiency of means of revision petitioner/husband.
5. The application was replied and contested on the ground that wife
has deserted the husband, she has leveled baseless allegations regarding
relationship with another woman. Wife is M.Com, PGDCA and she earns
sufficiently. Wife is responsible for maintenance of the child. He was
compelled to sale out the house purchased near Shri Aurbindo Instutitue of
Medical Science, Indore due to ailments of father. Wife has left the house on
25.04.2020 for no reasons.
6. Wife examined herself as PW-1 and husband examined himself as
NAW-1.
7. Appreciating the evidence, the learned Family court allowed the
application partially as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment assessing the
net income of the husband as Rs.60,720/- per month and recording the other
finding in favour of respondents.
8. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition is preferred
on the ground that the learned Family court erred in not appreciating the fact
that respondent no.1 is B.Com, M.Com and PGDCA and accordingly, she
can maintain herself. The learned family court further erred in granting the
maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month in favour of respondent no.2 who is
merely 7 years old. The learned family court further committed error in not
appreciating the fact that the awarded maintenance is causing extreme
financial hardships on the revision petitioner as he has to look after 75 years
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35615
3 CRR-5331-2025
old mother also who remains ill most of the time. The Principles laid down
in the cases of Kalyan Day Chowdhary vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy;
(2017) 14 SCC 200 and Madhu Gupta vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta order dated
11.02.2014 in Family Appeal No.144/2013 by High Court of Bombay have
not been followed.
9. Heard finally at the state of motion with the consent of both the
parties.
10. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition and
prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
11. Perused the record.
12. For disposal of this revision petition mainly three questions are
arises; (i) Whether respondent no.1/wife can be denied maintenance as she is
an educated? (ii) Whether the maintenance amount awarded in favour of
respondent no.2/minor girl child is excessive? (iii) Whether maintenance
amount awarded in favour of respondent no.2 is excessive?
13. Education of wife for denying her claim of maintenance cannot be
appreciated in isolation, it has to be considered in the light of attendant
circumstances. One of the consideration is that she is bearing the
responsibility of child and has to spent most of the time for caring the girl
child of 7 to 8 years. When she is living alone the possibilities of getting jot
after a gap of sufficient period have to be considered and income can be
assumed only if some material is brought on record, in this case, the income
has been suggested only on the basis of education alone. Accordingly, this is
not a case where wife can be denied maintenance in the absence of reliable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35615
4 CRR-5331-2025
evidence of income. Hence, question no.1 is answered in favour of
respondent no.1 and against revision petitioner no.2.
14. So far as second question is concerned, the child is residing in
Indore city and studying in SICA School, Indore. The expenses of education
as well as the cost of living are comparatively high in the city like Indore.
Accordingly, the amount of Rs.7,500/- per month cannot be said to be on
excessive. Hence, the second question is answered in favour of respondent
no.2/minor child and against revision petitioner.
15. Lastly, net income of revision petitioner is assessed as Rs.60,720/-
per month and an amount of Rs.25% in Kalyan Day Chowdhury (supra) is
for guidance of awarding maintenance when wife is considered alone. When
two persons are considered then the award of amount of Rs.20,000/- cannot
be said to be in violation of Kalyan Day Chowdhary and Madhu Gupa case
(supra).
16. Otherwise also, revision petitioner is shifting from one place to
another place due to requirement of his job and wife is bearing the
responsibilities of up-bringing of child of revision petitioner alone and
husband is only blaming, he is not taking into account the valuable time
spent by wife for up-bringing of girl child which will be in future an asset of
the nation. Para no.7 of the cross-examination of Pawan Patel examined as
NAW-1 discloses that he feels annoyed only due to the fact that the name of
wife was also entered in the sale deed with revision petitioner, which he later
sold out after obtaining a release deed from the wife in his favour. Hence,
question no.3 is answered in favour of respondent no.1/wife and against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35615
5 CRR-5331-2025
revision petitioner.
17. Therefore, in view of the entire elaborate discussion, this criminal
revision has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned family Court for
information.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
