[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vaheed Khan vs Ameena Bee on 15 December, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33050
1 MCRC-14714-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14714 of 2016
VAHEED KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
AMEENA BEE
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chachaura, District Guna in Criminal
Revision No. 74/2016, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was
dismissed and the order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Chachaura, District Guna in Case No. 04/2015 was
affirmed.
The factual matrix, as borne out from the record, indicates that the
respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and that their
marriage was solemnized on 25.05.2009. From the wedlock, a daughter was
born. The respondent alleged that after marriage she was subjected to
harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demands and was ultimately
driven out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to take shelter at her
parental home. She thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33050
2 MCRC-14714-2016
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and for her
daughter. The learned JMFC, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application and awarded
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, while declining
maintenance to the daughter on the ground that she was residing with the
petitioner. The said order was affirmed in revision.
The principal contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners
is that the respondent had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home without
sufficient cause, that she is gainfully employed, and that the petitioner No.1
has no source of income. It is also urged that the respondent made a false
claim with regard to the custody of the child and that the filing of a criminal
case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot, by itself, justify
separate residence.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
Upon due appreciation of the evidence, the learned JMFC has rightly
held that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and is
living separately. The admission of the respondent regarding the residence of
the child was correctly relied upon to deny maintenance to the daughter. As
regards the respondent-wife, a modest maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month
was awarded after considering the overall circumstances, social status of the
parties, and the absence of reliable proof of the petitioner's exact income.
The plea that the respondent is gainfully employed remains
unsubstantiated, as mere assertions without cogent evidence cannot displace
the trial court's findings. Similarly, the claim that petitioner No.1 is a student
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33050
3 MCRC-14714-2016
and unemployed was duly considered by the courts below. The findings that
the respondent is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner has
sufficient means are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of
evidence and suffer from no perversity or illegality.
Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and
intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. At this stage, a detailed
examination of disputed issues relating to motives, property disputes, or
pending criminal cases is neither warranted nor permissible.
The contention that the respondent is living separately without
sufficient cause is also devoid of merit. Matrimonial discord and allegations
of cruelty, including proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, were duly
considered by the courts below while granting maintenance. No patent
illegality is shown in such consideration.
The revisional court has independently examined the record and
affirmed the order of the learned JMFC by a reasoned judgment. No
jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or perversity is made out to warrant
interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
