Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Shah vs Smt. Sarika on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
1 CRR-4149-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4149 of 2025
VISHAL SHAH S/O SHRI SHANTILAL SHAH
Versus
SMT. SARIKA W/O VISHAL SHAH D/O LATE SHRI PREMCHAND JI
Appearance:
Petitioner - husband by Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate.
Reserved on 30.10.2025
Pronounced on 24.11.2025
ORDER
The defects, as pointed out by the Office, are ignored.
Heard on admission.
This revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1984) read with Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) is
preferred challenging the legality of order dated 12.08.2025 in Miscellaneous
Judicial Criminal Case No.1542 of 2023 passed by learned Additional Judge
to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, District Indore (MP)
whereby an amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) per month
has been awarded in favour of the respondent - wife from the date of
application i.e. 06.12.2023.
2. Facts, in brief, are that an application under Section 125 of the
Code was preferred on 06.12.2023 by the respondent - wife seeking
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
2 CRR-4149-2025
maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) per month; and an
amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs only) as cost of the
proceedings on the ground that marriage was solemnized on 03.07.2022 at
Goverdhan Palace, Valia Road, GIDC, Ankleshwar (Gujarat), as per Hindu
rituals and ceremonies; and she started living at the matrimonial home, after
marriage. After marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty
and therefore, she was bound to live at Indore (Madhya Pradesh) with her
sister. She filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, District Indore (MP), which is
pending. She is unable to maintain herself and no maintenance amount has
been provided whereas revision petitioner - husband earns an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs only) per month from the business of
wholesale of medical equipment and rental income as well as other
properties. Another application for interim maintenance was also preferred.
The application was supported with the affidavit.
2.1 The revision petitioner - husband opposed the application by
filing reply on the ground that he came in contact with the respondent - wife
through matrimonial sites. She concealed many legal and important facts
willfully and fraudulently as well as provided false information; and revision
petitioner entered into marriage ceremony through exchanging the garlands
on 03.07.2022 at Ankleshwar (Gujarat) upon relying the information
supplied by the respondent - wife and the marriage was to be registered
later-on. The respondent - wife did not disclose that she entered into
marriage ceremony without seeking divorce from former husband Om
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
3 CRR-4149-2025
Prakash Agrawal. Accordingly, the marriage solemnized on 03.07.2022 is
void ab-initio. The respondent - wife did not provide documents and the
marriage could not registered and the reason was that she had entered into
marriage ceremony without getting divorce from Om Prakash Agrawal. The
proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights have been filed only to harass
the revision petitioner - husband. She filed the aforesaid proceedings at
Indore (MP) only to harass the revision petitioner. She never resided at
Indore. She resides at Ahmadabad (Gujarat) along with her daughter and
earns an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) per annum. Her
family earns an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs only) per
annum. The revision petitioner - husband is suffering from various ailments
including Liver Cirrhosis. His son is suffering from 60% hearing
impairment and his three minor children born from his former wife is with
him. He entered into the marriage ceremony with the respondent to extend
the care of minor children, but he was subjected to cheating and greed of
respondent - wife. He is bound to dispose off his shares to bear the monthly
expenses of Rs.90,000/- (rupees ninety thousand only). The respondent -
wife has stolen the jewelry of his former wife and in this regard a complaint
has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankleshwar
(Gujarat). On the same line, reply of the interim application was filed and an
affidavit in compliance of judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of
Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SSC 324 was also filed.
2.2 Learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Indore, District Indore (MP), considering the rival contentions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
4 CRR-4149-2025
and referring to to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of
Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga
reported in AIR 2005 SC 422 as well as the contents of the affidavit of
revision petitioner filed in compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court in
case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) the income of the revision petitioner was
assessed as Rs.1,60,000/- (rupees one lakh sixty thousand only) per month
and allowed the application partially to the extent, as mentioned in para 1 of
this order.
3. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition is preferred
on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the
respondent - wife forged document regarding change of name of father of
her children. The trial Court further failed to consider the fact that the
respondent - wife is a earning lady. The trial Court further failed to consider
the fact that the revision petitioner is suffering from serious ailment and his
son is also suffering from serious medical issues and the fact that the entire
family of the revision petitioner is dependent upon him and the fact that in
the statement given by the respondent - wife before the Police at Gujarat, she
is residing in Gujarat. The trial Court further failed to consider the fact that
the respondent - wife is silent on the point that she has not obtained a decree
of divorce from her former husband and the trial Court further failed to
consider the fact that the respondent - wife is not legally wedded wife of the
revision petitioner and the trial Court further failed to consider the fact that
the respondent - wife is not residing in Indore.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was asked
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
5 CRR-4149-2025
to address the Court on the ground of maintainability of the revision petition,
in the light of judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Smt. N. Usha
Rani and another v. Moodudula Srinivas reported in 2025 INSC 129 .
5. Thereafter, the revision petitioner preferred an application vide IA
No.15087 of 2025 for taking additional documents, Annexure P/4 (an
affidavit dated 20.01.2024), Annexure P/5 (a photograph), Annexure P/6 (a
notice given by the revision petitioner through counsel to the respondent) and
Annexure P/7 (reply of the legal notice Annexure P/6) on record.
6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
7. Relevant Paragraph 17 of Supreme Court judgment in case of Smt.
N. Usha Rani and another v. Moodudula Srinivas (supra) is being
reproduced, as below: -
"17. This encapsulates the full scope and gravity of considerations
before this Court as we deliberate on the issue at hand. The
present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family
Court made a factual finding that Appellant No.1 married the
Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent.
Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance
by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No.1 is void ab initio as
her first marriage is still subsisting. Two other pertinent facts must
be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the Respondent that the
truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family Court makes a
specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of the first
marriage of the Appellant No.1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly
entered into a marriage with Appellant No.1 not once, but twice.
Secondly, Appellant No.1 places before this Court an MoU of
separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree
of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence
that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living
separately and Appellant No.1 is not deriving maintenance from
her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree,
Appellant No.1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is
not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that
marriage."
8. Now, coming to the facts of this case. Reply of the revision
petitioner is to the effect that the marriage through exchange of garlands was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
6 CRR-4149-2025
solemnized on 03.07.2022 at Ankleshwar (Gujarat). The documents
(Annexure P/4 to Annexure P/7) only mention that the respondent - wife was
married in the year 1995 to Pratap Yelappa Patil and three children were
born from the wedlock with Pratap Yelappa Patil. The document (Annexure
P/4) mentions that the marital tie was ended on 03.12.2006 and she denied
marital relationship with Om Prakash Agrawal. There is averment that Om
Prakash Agrawal adopted her children and she obtained money on credit
from Om Prakash Agrawal. There is no fact on record that till now the
respondent - wife is receiving any amount of maintenance from Pratap
Yaleppa Patil or has any marital relationship with Pratap Yelappa Patil. The
rest of the contentions raised are matter of evidence to be decided on merit,
after recording of evidence. When revision petitioner was solemnizing a
marriage on 03.07.2022, then he was aware about his financial capabilities
and liabilities including his physical ailments and children of his from
previous marriage. The factum of residence at Indore with the sister of
respondent - wife is supported with an affidavit and specific details of the
address.
9. The scope of revision in a challenge to the order of interim
maintenance is very limited, as mentioned by the Apex Court in case of
Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC
204 ; relevant para 10 is being reproduced, as below: -
"10. ... the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow.
The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error
which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is
also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional
Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the
case to reverse those findings."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34168
7 CRR-4149-2025
10. In light of above limited scope and material produced before trial
Court, this revision petition has no substance and is not fit to be admitted,
hence it is hereby dismissed in limine.
Pending interlocutory applications are disposed off accordingly.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
rcp
