Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poonamchandra Verma vs Pinki Verma on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30295
1 CRR-2967-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2967 of 2025
POONAMCHANDRA VERMA
Versus
PINKI VERMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Rathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
(Heard on: 09.10.2025)
(Delivered on: 15.10.2025)
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 read with section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is
preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 18.06.2025 in Criminal
Appeal No.51/2025 by the Session Judge, Shajapur arising out of order dated
15.05.2025 in MJCR No.113/2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Shajapur whereby an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month has been awarded in
favour of the respondents as maintenance and residing order has been passed
in favour of the respondent regarding House No.2/01 ward No.29 Near
Dwarika Garden Lake Dera Road Kanja Railway Fatak Shajapur Tehsil
District Shajapur (M.P.)
2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent no.1 was married to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30295
2 CRR-2967-2025
revision petitioner on 10.05.2006 and respondent no.2 and 3 were born out of
their wedlock but presently minor and are residing with respondent
no.1/mother.
3. An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 2005") was
preferred by the respondent/wife on 20.03.2005 alleging domestic violence
and seeking various reliefs under seeking various reliefs under Section 17,
18, 19 and 20 of the Act of 2005. An application under Section 23 of the Act
of 2005 was filed and an application under under Section 23 (1) of the Act of
2005 was filed by the revision petitioner/husband as revealed from the
impugned order as revision petitioner has not filed the reply on the ground
that all the objections that respondent no.1 is residing separately since 2023.
She earns Rs.45,000/- from working in health department. She filed a civil
suit regarding house before First Additional Sessions Judge, Junior Division,
Shajapur and case was registered as Civil Suit No.2/2025 and application for
temporary maintenance has been rejected. Respondent no.1 have intention to
take possession of the house. She has neither complying the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights and have deserted the petitioner.
4. The J.M.F.C., Shajapur has allowed the application partially as
mentioned in para-1 of the judgment and directed the revision
petitioner/husband to deliver one portion of double storey house to
respondents by vacating the same from the tenants.
5. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order this criminal revision is
preferred. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order are that trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30295
3 CRR-2967-2025
court overlooked the home loan payments of Rs.51,000/- per month which is
payable by the revision petitioner. Trial court ignored the fact that
respondent no.1 is working as ANM in the Health Department and raises her
income about Rs.75,000/- per month. Trial court also ignored that fact that
husband agricultural land has been covered under the "Bandh Pariyojna"
which has rendered the
revision petitioner's itself landholding insubstantial, and has eliminated a
source of income from the same. An amount of Rs.25,000/- per month is
unjustified and the claimed amount has not been justified.
6. Trial court has considered the fact that revision petitioner is a
teacher in Govt. School and his earning is Rs.75,000/- per month and he also
earns Rs.20,000/- as rent from the tenants and getting additional income
from the agricultural land whereas respondent no.1 gets only Rs.45,000/- and
respondent no.2 Tanishka Sharma is under treatment continuously. The so
called tenants were entered by the revision petitioner/husband by executing
lease deed. Adolescent girls requires save residence and accordingly interim
relief has been affirmed by the Appellate Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The scope of revision petition in a challenge to the order of interim
maintenance is very limited in the light of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The State
of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204 which 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 of
an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to
be well-founded error which is to be
determined on the merits of individual case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30295
4 CRR-2967-2025
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."
9. Houses are built so that children are protected. In this case, revision
petitioner/husband is taking care of interest of the tenants instead of
adolescent minor who are not only minor but one of them is facing health
challenges and are also taking education. Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court has recorded cogent reasons for allowing the application partially and
quantify the amount of maintenance as well as passing the residing order as
interim relief. Impugned order does not appears that it has been passed
violating the legal principles. Revision petitioner has recourse as per the final
outcome of the case. Apprehension of the revision petitioner cannot be
recognized at this stage to the extent that respondents be deprived from basic
minimum needs. Accordingly criminal revision is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
