Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohammad Umar vs Shakir Hussain on 9 July, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17337




                                                                1                              CRR-5823-2024
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
                                                       ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5823 of 2024
                                                       MOHAMMAD UMAR
                                                             Versus
                                                   SHAKIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                     Shri Vishal Patidar - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                     Shri Shivendra Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-
                          1].

                                                                    ORDER

Heard on I.A.No.19022/2024, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision.

The delay is of 42 days.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A.No.19022/2024 is allowed and the delay of 42 days in filing the present revision is hereby

condoned.

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel of both the parties.

2. This revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in MJCR No.111/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Neemuch whereby an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17337

2 CRR-5823-2024 revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be satisfied jointly and severally by the respondents who are the major sons of the revision petitioner.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner has filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 on 23.06.2022 for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month stating that he is now 70 years old and is not able to maintain himself. He took care of their children and spent all the money on the respondents' education, marriage etc. One 30 years old daughter who is real sister of the respondents is suffering from mental health issues.

4. The respondents filed reply separately and opposed the application alleging various personal family issues due to which their family life was

disturbed as their marriage was settled by the petitioner/father. They stated that they are also not in a good financial condition as they earn their livelihood through working as auto driver and other labour work.

5. The Family Court, Neemuch decided the application after recording all the evidence of the parties and passed the impugned order.

6. This petition has been preferred on the ground that the amount awarded is not sufficient to maintain the petitioner and daughter residing with him. Prayed for enhancement of the amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.

7. Notice was served to all the respondents, only respondent no.1 appeared through his counsel Shri Shivendra Singh Parihar and objected the revision petition on the ground that their source of income is also limited.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17337

3 CRR-5823-2024 They referred to para 10 of the impugned order and also referred to para 5 in which they proposed to take care of the father/revision petitioner, if father resides with their family.

8. Only question for consideration is whether a father who is in his 80's and have four physically abled sons and is bearing the liability of maintaining his daughter who is facing the mental health issues can survive only in the amount of Rs.3,000/-?

9. Even considering the para 10 of the judgment, the answer will be no and no fact that earning capacity of the respondents is affected by any physically disability is on record. The amount assessed by the trial Court is certainly on lower side. It requires to be enhanced.

10. Considering the evidence on record, an amount of Rs.12,000/- would be proper to award in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the Family Court, Neemuch is modified to the extent that "each respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner".

C.C. as per rules.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE