Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Radhika vs Lakshya Kumar on 6 January, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
1 CRR-3528-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3528 of 2024
SMT. RADHIKA
Versus
LAKSHYA KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance
Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3994 of 2024
LAKSHYA SONI
Versus
RADHIKA SONI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gagan Bajad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
HEARD ON : 17.11.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.01.2025
ORDER
With consent, heard finally.
2] This order shall govern the disposal of these criminal revisions as
they are arisen out of the same order dated 14.05.2024 passed in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
2 CRR-3528-2024
Appeal Nos.372/2023 and 15/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
District Indore. Hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by
this common order.
3] Being disgruntled by the judgment dated 14.05.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.372/2023 by the learned ASJ, Indore, the Criminal
Revision No.3528/2024 has been filed by petitioner Radhika for setting aside
the impugned order and requested that order dated 24.11.2023 passed in MJC
R No. 1416/2023 be altered or modified to the extent of her request for
interim maintenance of Rs.45,000/- filed under Section 23 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
"D.V. Act"), while the Criminal Revision No. 3994/2024 has been filed by
respondent/husband-Lakshya Soni to set aside the impugned order with
alternative request that the amount of interim maintenance granted, be
decreased. Further, the wife-Radhika will be addressed as petitioner while
husband -Lakshya will be addressed as respondent.
4] Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was
solemnized on 04.05.2017 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The petitioner
(in CRR 3528/2024) started to reside in her matrimonial house along with
her in-laws, wherein her husband and his family members started harassing
and torturing her for not fulfilling their demands of dowry. Due to not
fulfilling the demand, the petitioner was compelled to live separately.
5] Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife (in CRR No.3528/2024)
has pleaded in his arguments that the learned trial Court as well as Appellate
Court have committed grave illegality in awarding lesser maintenance in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
3 CRR-3528-2024
favour of wife. The petitioner was compelled to live separately. The
petitioner is liable to get maintenance as per family status of the respondent,
being a wife, she has started to live separately because of mental and
physical cruelty committed by the respondents. It is further submitted that the
amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is a meagre
amount. The respondent is having Wagon-R and he is also owner of three
houses, also getting rent from the houses. He has a degree of Ph.D. Hence,
the petitioner prayed that the petition filed by her may kindly be allowed and
impugned order dated 14.5.2024 may kindly be set aside and order dated
2411.2023 passed in MJCR No. 1416/2023 may be modified and she may be
awarded maintenance as prayed in the application filed by her.
6] The aforesaid facts were denied by the petitioner-husband (CRR
No. 3994/2024) in his reply to the application by stating that his wife herself
is competent lady, She is earning by doing job of teacher as she is having
M.Com Degree. No solid documents regarding Ph.D. degree of husband, is
filed by the other side. It is submitted that the wife is living separately
without any cogent reason, and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance
from her husband. It is further submitted that the respondent has received one
house from his grandmother as a Gift Deed and due to some dispute, a Civil
Suit has also been filed for the said house. Certainly, the car (Wagon-R)
belongs to the respondent, but that is being used by the petitioner as well as
rent is also being received by her from the house, which was purchased by
mother of the respondent by the amount of Provident Fund. There is nothing
on record regarding the fact that she is not earning anything and non-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
4 CRR-3528-2024
availability of such pleading itself is sufficient that she herself is an earning
lady. It is settled position of law that the proof of burden is first placed upon
the wife to prove that the means of her husband are sufficient and she is
unable to maintain herself. On these grounds, counsel for the husband prayed
allowing of the petition (CRR No. 3994/2024) filed by him.
7] I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8] In view of the arguments and rival submissions of counsel for
both parties, I have gone through the record. The statements of Smt. Radhika
Soni, wife and Lakshya Soni, husband are contradicting to each other.
However, it is revealed that the respondent is a teacher having salary of
Rs.12,260/- per month and also getting remuneration of Rs.200/- per lecture.
It is also admitted fact that the respondent is owner of a Car (Wagon-R). On
the other side, the wife has fairly stated that she is having degree of M.Com.
but she is not working yet.
9] Actually, while deciding the interim maintenance amount under
D.V. Act, the trial Court ought to consider prima-facie material available on
record. In this case, there are allegations of cruelty against the respondent
which has to be decided after evidence. However, the income of respondent
is admittedly established as Rs.12,260/- per month alongwith Rs.200/- per
lecture and he is also having a car Wagon-R. On the other side, the
wife/petitioner is living separately alongwith minor child. It is also evident
that as a school fee of her child, she has deposited Rs.31,980/- on
01.01.2023. Hence, the requirement and ability of husband for awarding
maintenance can be assumed. However, in the considered opinion of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
5 CRR-3528-2024
Court while deciding the award of interim maintenance under D.V. Act, the
Courts are obliged to consider the principles of maintenance under Section
125 of Cr.P.C.
10] In this regard, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy
(AIR 2017 SC 2383), wife is entitled to get 25% of the income of the
husband. Hon'ble High Court of M.P., endorsing the aforesaid citation in the
case of Amit Pandey vs. Manisha Pandey reported as 2020 Law Suit (M.P)
1098, adumbrated as under:-
"The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey
Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy (AIR
2017 SC 2383), has held that 25% of the income of the
husband would be just and proper and not more than
that. So, apart from that when ex-parte order was passed
in favour of the respondent/ wife, then learned trial
Court should have awarded 25% of the net income of
the petitioner/non-applicant as maintenance and not
more than that. So, it is appropriate to reduce the
awarded maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month
to Rs.7,000/- per month which would be paid by the
petitioner/non-applicant to the respondent/wife. The
decisions in Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree
Haldar (AIR 2003 SC 3174) and Chandrakalabai Vs.
Bhagwan Singh (2002 Cr.L.J. 3970) are not at all
applicable in the case of petitioner/non- applicant."
11] Further, in view of the impugned order, it is crystal clear that the
respondent/husband is living in his life style and maintaining the standards,
therefore, as per the settled provisions of law, the wife is certainly entitled to
live her life as per the standards of her husband. On this aspect, it is asserted
i n Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse [AIR (2014) SCW 256], the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
6 CRR-3528-2024
purposive interpretation needs to be given to provision of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and it is bounden duty of Courts to advance cause of social justice. It
is time honourned principal that the wife is entitled to a financial status
equivalent to that of the husband. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the test is
whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used
to live with her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) , it
was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of
living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with
status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean
that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
12] The aforesaid legal propositions with regard to the maintenance
awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., however, it is also applicable while
deciding the interim maintenance amount under Section 23 of D.V. Act. At
this juncture, the following excerpts of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors., [(2021) 2
SCC 324] is reproduced below :-
"The test for determination of maintenance in
matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of
the respondent, and the standard of living that the
applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable
and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e.
maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable
for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it
drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the
quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to
maintain herself with reasonable comfort."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
7 CRR-3528-2024
13] In this case, the Appellate Court has also observed that the
husband has not filed any application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act for
alteration, modification or revocation in the order in any change
circumstance of the case, whereas in change circumstances, such application
can be filed by the petitioner. This observation of learned Appellate Court
appears to be correct in view of the law. Be that as it may, a destitute wife
having a girl child alongwith her, is always entitled for maintenance for
appropriate amount.
14] After considering the affidavits, statements before
Administrative / Protection Officer and other evidence available on record,
learned trial Court has passed the impugned order for interim maintenance.
The learned Appellate Court, considering the each and every aspect of the
case and after appreciation of the order of the trial Court, affirmed the order
of the trial Court. So far as the amount of interim maintenance is concerned,
in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and settled position of law
and considering the monthly income of husband Lakshya as Rs.12,260/- per
month and also Rs.200/- per lecture, learned trial Court awarded the interim
maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for the wife and child. Also
considering the socio-economic standard of wife as per the standard of her
husband, the interim maintenance amount seems to be correct in view of
settled proposition of law. The fact findings of both Courts is not warranting
any interference. Moreover, the impugned order of Appellate Court dated
14.05.2024 is not against propriety, legality and correctness. Hence, the
revision petition filed by the husband (CRR No. 3994/2024) is having no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:191
8 CRR-3528-2024
merits and is hereby dismissed.
15] So far as the criminal revision filed on behalf of wife is
concerned, the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the income of the
husband/respondent and awarded the maintenance in accordance with law
after following the due ratio which is normally required to be considered by
the Courts at the time of passing the orders of maintenance. The wife is also
not entitled to lead a life of idle people, she can live with liberty to earn
something for her livelihood with the aid of interim maintenance amount
obtained from her husband. Hence, the revision petition filed on behalf of
wife (CRR No. 3528/2024) is also having no merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
16] In view of the aforesaid, both the petitions filed on behalf of
wife as well as on behalf of husband, are dismissed.
17] A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.
Certified copy as per rule.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
