[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Verma vs Smt. Sonal Verma on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36467
1 CRR-3458-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3458 of 2025
SANDEEP VERMA
Versus
SMT. SONAL VERMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aniket Naik - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 r/w Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred being
aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2025 in MJCR No.667/2021 by Third
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, whereby an amount of
Rs.15,000/- p.m. has been awarded to respondent No.2/minor girl child and
Rs.7,000/- p.m has been awarded to respondent No.3/ minor son as
maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 from the
date of filing of application i.e. 22.07.2021.
2. The undisputed facts are that the marriage was solemnized between
revision petitioner and respondent No.1/wife as per Hindu rites and rituals.
Out of the said wedlock, two children were born who are minors. The
respondent No.2/ girl child is pursuing her studies at Agrawal Public School,
Indore, whereas respondent No.3 is pursuing his studies at St. Arnold's
School, Indore. Both the children are residing with the mother/ respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36467
2 CRR-3458-2025
No.1.
3. An application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973
was preferred on 22.07.2021 seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.40,000/-
per month.
4. The said application was replied and opposed on various grounds
including the fact that he earns only Rs.41,000/- per month and he is bound
to pay the installment of home loan to the tune of Rs.23,600/- and have to
bear the responsibility of old aged parents, out of the remaining salary of
Rs.19,510/- and no money is left with him to bear the responsibility as
claimed. Whereas, the respondent No.1/wife is Bachelor of Engineering
degree holder and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and she can maintain
herself and the children. The Family Court recorded the testimony of
respondent No.1 as [PW-1] and admitted the documents [(Ex. P-1 to P-33)]
whereas, revision petitioner/ husband examined himself as [DW-1] and
adduced the documents [(Ex. D-1 to D-17)]. Appreciating the evidence, the
Family Court rejected the claim of respondent No.1/wife but
partially allowed the claim of respondent No.2 and 3 as mentioned in para 21
of the judgment.
5. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition has been
preferred on the ground that interim maintenance was granted only to the
tune of Rs.12,000/- per month but final maintenance has been increased
without additional material of income. The Family Court further committed
error while granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
The learned Trial Court has erred in giving the finding that respondent No.2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36467
3 CRR-3458-2025
is suffering from severe heard disease. Respondent No.1 in paragraph 25 has
accepted the fact that respondent No.2 has been completely healed and is no
longer suffering from any ailments. The Family Court has ignored the
liability of the revision petitioner/ husband and has assessed the income
wrongly.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. The record discloses that the revision petitioner is the father of
respondent No.2 and 3, who are minor. The revision petitioner is working as
Assistant Manager in CIPLA Ltd. There is volume of documents on record
to establish that the respondent No.2/ minor girl child is facing the challenges
of AVNRT i.e. Atrioventricular-nodal Reentrant Tachycardia and she
undergone treatment at Vishesh Jupitor Hospital, Indore, Holy Family
Hospital, Indore, Bombay Hospital and Suyash Multi Specialty Hospital,
Indore and other consultant where the mother can approach and afford the
treatment. The cross-examination only indicates that the medical condition is
under control and the child is on medications continuously. Revision
petitioner is exhaustive energy only to believe the facts established through
documents. The proceedings of Family Court reveal that revision petitioner
insisted to provide the Hindi translation of application instead of extending
the cooperation in early disposal of the proceedings. Most of the liabilities
referred to by the revision petitioner were incurred voluntarily, and he cannot
claim priority for them over his duty towards his minor children.
8. As per Article 51A(k) of the Constitution of India, it is the
fundamental duty of the revision petitioner to provide opportunities for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36467
4 CRR-3458-2025
education to his children i.e. respondent No.2 and 3. It cannot be ignored that
the mother is investing the valuable time in taking care of the minor children
and the revision petitioner is investing that period for himself only. He cannot
succeeds that the amount of maintenance be limited to the 25% of the net
salary when the matter comes to the two minor children. He cannot raise a
plea that the amount of interim maintenance was granted lesser than that has
finally been awarded because interim maintenance is awarded on the basis of
prima facie material available at that time and the final amount of
maintenance is awarded after appreciating the evidence. Revision petitioner
cannot succeed on the strength of Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. Mansi Meen
alias Harpreet Kaur reported in (2010) 15 SCC 372, as no amount of
maintenance has been awarded in favor of the wife, hence, the revision
petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.
9. In view of above, revision petition stands dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
