Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Divya vs Bharat on 22 May, 2025

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

                                                                                            1                                     CRR-4305-2024


                                   IN THE               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                        AT I N D O R E
                                                                               BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

                                                              ON THE 22nd OF MAY, 2025
                                                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4305 of 2024

                                                                            SMT. DIVYA
                                                                                Versus
                                                                              BHARAT
                          .............................................................................................................................
                          Appearance:
                                 Shri Vismit Panot - Advocate for the applicant.
                                        Shri Arpit Singh - Advocate for respondent.
                          .............................................................................................................................

                                                                                ORDER

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07/08/2024

(Annex.-A/1) passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in MJC

No.1699/2022, whereby application for maintenance filed under Section

125(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short referred

as, 'Cr.P.C.') filed on behalf of the applicants / wife and daughter has been

dismissed.

02. It is not in dispute that applicant Smt. Divya Murjani (Balwani) was

married to the respondent Bharat Murjani as per rituals on 20/01/2019 and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

2 CRR-4305-2024

out of their wedlock applicant No.2 Krisha is born. (It is also not in dispute

that in the impugned order at Page 13 to 15, para 29 to 33 have been

mentioned and from page 16 again the para 30 and 31 are repeated)

03. Applicant has levelled allegations in the application that respondent

was having illicit relationship with the other women before marriage and he

continued to be in direct contact with the aforesaid girlfriends. He is a person

of criminal tendency and is involved in gold, mobile and liquor smuggling.

He continued to threaten applicant for implicating her. After marriage, she

was not allowed to go anywhere and she was kept under house arrest. She

was continuously harassed for demand dowry. Respondent after consuming

liquor used to beat her at the behest of his parents and sisters. She was not

allowed to take proper treatment when she became pregnant and when she

gave birth to a girl child, she was harassed about who will bear her

daughter's expenses. She has further alleged that her father-in-law would

inappropriately touch her lower back with bad intentions. She was maltreated

on raising objections. She was sent to her parental house in February, 2021

and after that respondent / husband did not care for her and her daughter and

continued demanding Rs.10 Lakhs and 10 tola gold with a car. Due to this ill

treatment she went in depression.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

3 CRR-4305-2024

3.1 It has been further pleaded that she is not doing any working therefore,

having no independent income, whereas the applicant is doing Tours and

Travels Business and thereby earns Rs.2 Lakhs per month. He also earns

Rs.1 Lakh per month by keeping house, gold and other properties on

mortgage and lending money at interest. On these miscellaneous

submissions, applicants urges the Court for allowing an amount of

Rs.50,000/- per months towards maintenance for her and her daughter for

dignified living.

04. Respondent refuted all the allegations in reply to the petition. He

further submits that no illegal demand has ever been made and / or she has

been even maltreated. Rather the applicant No.1 was threatening to commit

suicide and implicate her in laws. In Pre-COVID period he was doing

business of Tours and Travels along with his father but after that business

came to close and now he is working as Travel Agent with meager income of

Rs10000/- per month. She has lodged domestic violence case on false

grounds against the him. Applicant No.1 is employed in some big Company

and is earning reasonably good amount as she is highly educated B.Com.

graduate. She can properly maintain herself. She is residing away from the

respondent from August, 2021 without sufficient reasons and on false

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

4 CRR-4305-2024

grounds she has filed this application for maintenance which she is not

entitled for and therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the petition.

05. Learned trial Court after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing

and adducing evidence to both the parties vide impugned order has dismissed

the application.

06. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order passed

by the Court below is based on whims and surmises. Learned Court below

has not considered evidence in right perspective. The finding that applicant is

residing away from the respondent without sufficient reason is perverse.

Applicant has adduced sufficient evidence that she was maltreated by the

respondent / husband and by her father-in-law which gives her sufficient

reasons for claiming maintenance even living away from the respondent.

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of this Court towards

para 29 to 31 of the impugned order. He further submits that as an interim

maintenance Rs.8,000/- was allowed to the applicant, but by this perverse

order the same has been denied even there being ample evidence on record.

07. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the

judgment by the Madras High Court in the case of B. Chinnamma Vs.

V.Muthusamy reported in 1991 SCC OnLine Mad 310, in para 7 has held

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

5 CRR-4305-2024

as under:-

"when the wife is subjected to humiliation and ill-treatment by the father-in-law and brother-in-law, and the husband remains a mute spectator, such failure to safeguard the wife's interests amounts to cruelty. This entitles the wife to live separately without forfeiting her right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code."

08. He has further placed reliance on the judgment by Apex court in the

case of Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 326, wherein the

Apex Court Apex Court has observed as under:-

"if a wife is forced to leave her matrimonial home due to ill- treatment by her in-laws and the husband's indifference, she has a valid reason to live separately and claim maintenance."

09. He has further relied on the judgment by Apex court in the case of

Bhanot Vs. Savita Bhanod reported in (2012) 3 SCC 183, wherein the

Apex Court in para 12 and 13 has held as under:-

"failure of the husband to protect his wife from harassment by his family members amounts to cruelty. Such failure justifies the wife's separate residence and claim for maintenance."

10. He has further placed reliance on the judgment by Apex court in the

case of in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5

SCC 226, wherein para 15 and 22 has observed as under:-

"mental cruelty includes the failure of a spouse to protect the other from harassment by his or her relatives. Such conduct entitles the aggrieved spouse to live separately and claim

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

6 CRR-4305-2024

maintenance."

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the

impugned order submits that findings recorded by the learned Court below

against the applicants are well reasoned and based on evidence on record. No

fault can be found with. He submits that applicant No.1 along with her

daughter is residing away from the company of the respondent without any

sufficient reason. The allegations leveled against him are not supported by

any evidence. She has filed FIR under Section 498-A of IPC, but no

allegation with regard to alleged obscene Act by father-in-law has been

mentioned therein, which itself reveal that she has concocted story in this

regard. For this, he has invited attention of this Court towards para 29 to 31

of the impugned order.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent invited attention of this Court

towards para 42 of cross-examination of the applicant No.1, wherein she has

first admitted that she has bank account and last four digits are '7981' with

allegation that the same account is being operated by her in-laws and after

that retracted herself from the fact that the above account maintained in her

name maintained at SBI, Indore, wherein she deposits salary. On these

miscellaneous submissions, learned counsel submits that order passed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

7 CRR-4305-2024

Court below is well reasoned and cannot be interfered while exercising the

powers under revisional jurisdiction, which is extra ordinary in nature,

therefore, prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.

13. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar and also

perused the record.

14. It is not in dispute that applicant No.1 was married to respondent and

out of this wedlock applicant No.2 daughter Krisha was born. Applicant has

assigned reason for living away from the Company of respondent is that he is

having illicit relationship with the other women and continued to do so even

after marriage and also the fact that she has been maltreated by the

respondent and her in-laws. Even father-in-law had evil eye on her and he

touched her with bad intention including laying his hand in her waist but the

fact with regard to bad intention of father-in-law has not been mentioned in

the FIR lodged under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Crime

No.509/2022 at Police Station Juni Indore, Indore by the applicant No.1.

15. But leaving this apart Applicant / wife has assigned other reasons also

for living away from the company of the respondent / husband is that she has

has continuously maltreated by respondent / husband and in-laws. She has

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

8 CRR-4305-2024

not only made allegations but when she was fed-up of the maltreatment

meted out to her, she has lodged FIR against the respondent and in-laws with

vivid details, which is registered at Crime No.509/2022 at Police Station Juni

Indore, Indore.

16. It is of common knowledge that as far as possible women in Indian

society make efforts to adjust in the matrimonial house. Only when situation

becomes unbearable, they approach the police or other authorities for

lodging complaint or FIR. The allegations raised by the applicant-wife have

been reiterated in her statement in this case before the Court. Even though

respondent / husband has refuted the allegations but same cannot be brushed

aside at this stage for holding that applicant is living away from the company

of the respondent / husband without sufficient reasons as veracity of

allegations is still to adjudicated in criminal case. Therefore, finding

recorded by the Court below that applicant is living away from the

respondent without sufficient reason cannot be sustained. In this regard

judgments relied upon by the applicant in the case of B. Chinnamma Vs. V.

Muthusamy (Supra), Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan (Supra), Bhanot Vs. Savita

Bhanod (Supra) and K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa (Supra) support her

claim.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

9 CRR-4305-2024

17. As far as income of the applicant is concerned, no cogent evidence has

been tendered by the respondent to prove that she is woman of sufficient

means and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. In this regard,

respondent / husband Bharat (NAW-1) in para 12 of his cross-examination

has stated that his wife, the applicant is in service, but he accepts that he has

no proof in this regard. He has further stated that she is earning near about

Rs.15,000/- per month is also based on his surmises, therefore, this evidence

led by the respondent / husband does not prove that applicant / wife is in

service and having sufficient means to sustain herself along with her

daughter. She herself has controverted the evidence in this regard led by the

respondent / husband. She has specifically mentioned in para 13 of her

statement before the Court that she is not doing any business as she has to

take care of her toddler daughter.

18. As far as income of the respondent / husband is concerned, the

applicant / wife in para 10 of her examination-in-chief before the Court has

stated that respondent is doing business in the name of Bharat Tours and

Travels, wherein he books Air Tickets, Railway Tickets, Travel Packages,

Passport, Money Transfer, Foreign Money Exchange, etc. and earns near

about Rs.2 Lakhs per month. He also earns Rs.1 Lakh per month by keeping

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

10 CRR-4305-2024

house, gold and other properties on mortgage and lending money at interest..

Thus, she has asserted that respondent / husband is earning near about Rs.3

Lakhs per month which could not be rebutted by cogent evidence.

19. Respondent / husband (NAW-1) has unsuccessfully tried to controvert

the statement made by applicant / wife with respect to his income. In para 11,

it has been stated by respondent / husband that he is doing business of Tours

and Travels with his farther and Tauji (elder brother of his father). Though he

has stated that his father is paying him only Rs.10,000/- per month but he has

neither denied the fact that he is involved in the aforesaid business nor

controverted the fact of his income as alleged by his wife. In para 16 also, he

has admitted about the aforesaid business. In para 17 of his cross-

examination, he has admitted that he along with applicant / wife had gone on

foreign tour of three countries including Malaysia and Dubai. He has further

admitted that in passport entries regarding foreign tour are recorded but he

has not supported his passport. In para 18, he has further admitted that he

went on foreign tour with his wife and expenditure of near about Rs.1 Lakh

was incurred. He has further admitted in para 30 of his cross-examination

that in his affidavit submitted before the Court below it is mentioned that he

is Proprietor of Tours and Travels Business. Though in suo moto statement

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

11 CRR-4305-2024

he has stated that this fact has been wrongly mentioned, but it does not

inspire confidence. In para 31 of his statement, respondent has mentioned his

income as Rs.15,000/- only but looking to the foreign tours and lavish

lifestyle of living as is manifest from the photographs filed and other

evidence on record, it is apparent that respondent has concealed his income.

It can be safely inferred from the expenses incurred and nature of business

that applicant is atleast having monthly income of Rs.50,000/-.

20. In case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena reported in (2015) 6

SCC 353, the apex Court has held as under:-

"Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

12 CRR-4305-2024

unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."

21. Mere fact that the applicant wife is earning does not absolve the

respondent husband of his responsibility to maintain her and her minor

daughter. Admittedly, the respondent is a businessman No reason or material

has been placed on record by the respondent to even prima facie show that

he is incapable or incapacitated from earning.

22. Respondent has a legal, social and moral responsibility to not only

maintain his wife but also his children. Even if assuming that the applicant is

earning, the same cannot be a reason for the respondent to avoid the

responsibility and duty of maintaining his wife and minor daughter.

23. A child for her upbringing does not only require money. A lot of time

and effort goes in upbringing of a child. It would be incorrect to hold that

both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child. A

mother who has custody of a child not only spends money on the upbringing

of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child.

One cannot put value to the time and effort put in by the mother in

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

13 CRR-4305-2024

upbringing of the child. No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also

contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be

divided equally between the two.

24. Here it appear to be pertinent to extract the observation of Apex Court

in para 8 of the judgment Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 which

runs as under:-

"8. In an illustrative case where the wife was surviving by beg- ging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal in- come of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance un- der Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a posi- tion to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [(1975) 2 SCC 386 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1975 SC 83] it was ob- served that the wife should be in a position to maintain a stan- dard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "un- able to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance un- der Section 125 CrPC."

25. In the present case, it is evident and proved by the material available

on record that applicant / wife is not living away from the company of the

respondent / husband without sufficient reasons. It is also proved that wife is

not having sufficient means to support herself and to her daughter. It is also

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13738

14 CRR-4305-2024

proved that respondent / husband has sufficient means and income to fulfill

the obligations towards his wife and daughter.

26. The aforesaid circumstances have not been duly appreciated by the

learned Court below in the right perspective. The impugned order passed by

the Court below refusing the applicant / wife and her daughter in not

allowing maintenance is not sustainable in law.