[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhaya vs Annu Kushwah on 16 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37121
1 CRR-4957-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4957 of 2018
CHHAYA
Versus
ANNU KUSHWAH
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Kachole - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan - Advocate for the respondent.
HEARD ON : 28.10.2025
POSTED ON : 16.12.2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2018
passed in MJCR No.123/2015 by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Indore whereby the prayer for maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 has been rejected on the ground that the wife is living separately
without sufficient cause.
02. Facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner and respondent
were married on 27.04.2013 at Indore. The application for maintenance was
preferred on 12.02.2015 alleging cruel acts and harassment, inability to maintain,
neglect of maintenance and sufficiency of means of the husband that the
respondent/husband earns Rs.30,000/- per month by running a tea shop and
operating agricultural activities and lending money on interest and his father earns
Rs.50,000/- per month and claimed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from 08.09.2013,
the day on which she was ousted from the nuptial home for no reason.
03. The application was replied and opposed on the ground that the revision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37121
2 CRR-4957-2018
petitioner/wife was never harassed or any cruelty was committed towards the wife.
The applications are false. The wife is a graduate lady and served as a teacher in a
private schools and earns more than Rs.5,000/- per month. On the contrary, he
educated up to 6th Class only. Earlier, wife served at the call centre of Idea
Cellular Company. The husband earns only Rs.3,000/- per month by working at
tea stall of Sunil Patidar situated at Nanak Nagar, Indore. He resides at
Ambikapuri, Indore in a rental house by paying Rs.1,200/- rent per month. Wife
hates his job working at a tea stall. She does not want to live with him and has
filed the application with false allegations. A notice of divorce was served on the
revision petitioner/wife on 19.10.2014, and in the counterblast of that notice, the
applications have been preferred.
04. The revision petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and adduced the
documents Exhibit-P/1 to P/8. The respondent examined himself as DW-1.
05. Appreciating the evidence, the Family Court, Indore rejected the
application on the ground that the wife is living separately for no reason and she is
not entitled for any maintenance. The family Court, Indore recorded the finding
that it is not proved that the wife have means to maintain herself and
respondent/husband is able bodies person and assist his income Rs.10,000/- and
further recorded the finding that he has sufficient means to maintain the wife but
rejected the application by recording the finding that the wife is living separately
for no sufficient reason.
06. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition has been
preferred on the ground that the Family Court, Indore ignored the complaint made
by the revision petitioner before Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore and brought
on record as Exhibit-P/1 and recorded the finding contrary to the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37121
3 CRR-4957-2018
available on record. The Family Court, Indore further committed an error in
recording the finding that she was not subjected to harassment due to want of
dowry and further committed error in recording the finding that no evidence is on
record regarding the illicit relationship between the revision petitioner and her
sister-in-law, because there can be no direct proof of such a relationship.
Heard.
07. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition and
supported the rejection of maintenance.
Perused the record.
08. Before dealing with the illegality of the impugned order, it is important
to mention that the marriage of the parties has been dissolved vide judgment dated
31.07.2018 by the decree of divorce in HMA Case No.1194/2014 by the Second
Additional Principal Judge, Indore but the petition filed by the
respondent/husband on 09.10.2012 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1954 and there is no order of permanent alimony in the decree of
divorce. A divorced woman is also entitled to claim maintenance, and this
application for maintenance was preferred after filing of a petition for divorce by
the husband. Accordingly, the wife cannot be denied the maintenance on the
ground of living separately for no reason. As per para 6 of the wife (examined as
PW-1), at the time of marriage, the wife had cleared only 12 th standard, and after
the marriage, she completed her graduation in 2013-2017. Nothing has been
brought on record that the wife has remarried. The purpose of the provisions of
maintenance is to provide support, and this support extends even after the
dissolution of marriage and cannot be denied for inadequate reasons. Thus, the
Family Court, Indore committed error in applying Section 125(4) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in denying the maintenance to the wife. The source of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37121
4 CRR-4957-2018
income are not the subject matter of scrutiny in the limited scope of the revision
petition in the light of the material available on record. Accordingly, an amount of
maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month is awarded as maintenance in favour of the
revision petitioner/wife from the date of application, i.e. 12.02.2015.
09. The wife was receiving Rs.2,500/- per month as interim maintenance.
The amount paid as interim maintenance will be adjusted towards the due amount
of maintenance.
10. The cost of this petition will also be borne by the respondent/husband,
and that cost is fixed as Rs.5,000/-.
11. In view of the above observation, the present criminal revision is
allowed and disposed of.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
