Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Goswami vs Smt Rani on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17024
1 CRR-1595-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1595 of 2019
PAWAN GOSWAMI
Versus
SMT RANI
Appearance:
Shri Shahid Shaikh - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1852 of 2019
SMT. RANI
Versus
PAWAN GOSWAMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Shahid Shaikh - Advocate for the respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1853 of 2019
SMT. RANI
Versus
PAWAN GOSWAMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Shahid Shaikh- Advocate for the respondents
Reserved on :-02.07.2025
Posted on :- 08.07.2025
.......................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17024
2 CRR-1595-2019
The controversy involved in these revisions is identical, therefore, they
are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These criminal revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred challenging the legality
of the order dated 09.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2018 arising out
of the order dated 29.12.2017 in MJCR No.26/2010 by JMFC, Dewas
whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- as
maintenance to the respondent wife and Rs. 2000/- per month as rent of
accommodation and a compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the respondent.
3. Facts in brief are that respondent wife filed a petition under
Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
seeking various reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23. Application
was preferred on 06.07.2010 on the ground that they developed intimacy
during their education period in Dewas. They got married on 02.08.2008 at
Arya Samaj Mandi, Bhagirathpura, Indore. Petitioner husband is working at
Tata International, Dewas and Eicher Motors Ltd.,Dewas by running Mess
and run a Restaurant at 'Madhu Milllan Choraha', Dewas in the title of
'Pawan Restaurant'. He also runs a shop of Sanchi Point and earn Rs.
25,000-35,000 per month. He and his family members committed cruelty
and respondent was forced to reside at matrimonial Home and filed an
application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
seeking protection under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19,
monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22.
4. The application was replied and on the ground that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17024
3 CRR-1595-2019
respondent/wife has lodged a false criminal case against him. Parents of the
respondent were insisting to live in 'sasural' as 'Ghar Jamai'.
Respondent/wife earns as 'Aganwadi Karyakarta'. No domestic violence has
been committed. On the contrary wife/respondent has humiliated the
petitioner at his work place and another public places. The petitioner is not
entitled for any relief .
5. After calling the Domestic Incident Report from Project Officer
Integrated Child Development Project, Dewas City South and recording the
evidence of both the sides JMFC, Dewas allowed the application partially
and ordered to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month from the
date of the order and Rs.2000.- per month as rent accommodation. Also
passed a protection order and an order to return the golden jewelry to the
respondent. Both the parties challenged the order of JMFC, Dewas.
Wife/respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 37/2018 for enhancement of the
monetary reliefs, whereas the petitioner/husband filed Criminal Appeal No.
35/2018 for setting aside the order.
6. The appellate Court disposed of both the appeals by common
order and both the appeals were partly allowed and order of maintenance
was enhanced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month, wherein the order of
returning the golden jewelry was set-aside and rest of the reliefs were
affirmed.
7. Challenging the order in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2018 and 35
of 2018, this Criminal Revision No. 1595 of 2019 is preferred by the
husband on the ground that the findings of domestic violence are perverse.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17024
4 CRR-1595-2019
The petitioner has no source of income. Whereas, respondent wife is an
'Aganvadi Karyakarta'. He has been acquitted from the charges under
Section 376 of the IPC and the marriage is not valid.
8. Criminal Revision Nos. 1852 of 2019 and 1853 of 2019 are
preferred by the wife for enhancement of rent accommodation from Rs.
2000/- to Rs. 5000/- and enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1 lac to Rs.
2 lac and enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 5000/- to Rs.
15,000/-and for grant of medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. In both
the Criminal Revisions, the relief claimed is the same.
9. Heard.
10. Perused the record.
11. Firstly, this Court is discussing the Criminal Revision No. 1595
of 2019 preferred by the Husband.
12. Trial Court has discussed in Paragraph-10 of the order dated
29.12.2017 referring to the Paragraph-2 of the reply of the present petitioner,
relationship between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife. Relief
cannot be denied on the ground that the marriage was performed without due
procedure as the relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 is available to the persons living in the relationship of
nature of marriage.
13. Denial of marital relationship and performing another marriage
itself accounts to Domestic Violence and findings in Paragraph-14 are based
on proper evidence. Cross examination of Pawan Goswami (non-applicant
No.1) discloses that he possesses sufficient source of income and Paragraph-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17024
5 CRR-1595-2019
21 of his statement discloses that he had not made any arrangements for the
respondent/wife. There is no perversity in the findings of the JMFC, Dewas
as affirmed by the appellate Court. No illegality has been committed by both
the Courts below. Considering the amount of maintenance, it requires no
interference. Amount in the head of maintenance and amount in the head of
rent for accommodation cannot be clubbed and it cannot be argued that the
relief provided is in excess that was claimed. Hence, this revision being
devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
14. Now this Court is considering the Criminal Revision Nos. 1852
of 2019 and 1853 of 2019 in which the relief claimed is the same and the
order under challenge is also the same.
15. Before adverting to the revision petitions, contentions in the
revision petition, we are referring to the Paragraph-9 of the application
preferred by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Act, 2005. The amount for alternate accommodation was claimed
only Rs. 2000/- and that has been granted as per claim. The amount of
maintenance was claimed only Rs. 5000/- and that has been granted as per
the claim. The assessment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac is based
on the discussion in Paragraph-19 of the order of JMFC, Dewas. The
amount has been properly appreciated and assessed. There is no ground for
interference in the scope of revision. There was no demand for medical
expenses. No evidence has been brought on record to substantiate that
demand in revision. The First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the
evidence in Paragraphs-38 and 39 of the judgment dated 09.02.2019 and has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17024
6 CRR-1595-2019
rightly rejected the claim of return of four gold bangles. The findings does
not appear to be perverse. Accordingly, no case for interference in revision
petition is made out. Hence, Criminal Revision Nos. 1852 of 2019 and 1853
of 2019 also does not succeeds and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
rashmi
