Madhya Pradesh High Court
Simran Kaur vs Lavdeep Singh Bhatia on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
1 CRR-3235-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3235 of 2024
LOVEDEEP SINGH BHATIA
Versus
SIMRAN KAUR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpit Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Saloni Ojha- Advocate for the respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2477 of 2024
SIMRAN KAUR AND OTHERS
Versus
LAVDEEP SINGH BHATIA
Appearance:
Ms. Saloni Ohja- Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Arpit Singh - Advocate for the respondent.
(Heard on: 19.09.2025)
(Delivered on: 22.09.2025)
ORDER
Criminal Revision No.3235/2024 under section 19 (4) of the Family
Court Act, 1984 is preferred challenging the legality of order dated
19.04.2024 in MJCR No.242/2022 passed by the Third Additional Principal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
2 CRR-3235-2024
Judge, Family Court, Indore (M.P.) whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/- has
been awarded to the respondent no.1/wife and Rs.7,000/- to the respondent
no.2/minor child and Rs.12,000/- has been awarded to the respondent
no.3/minor child from the date of application i.e. 15.02.2022.
2. Criminal Revision No.2477/2024 under section 19 (4) of the Family
Court Act, 1984 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 is preferred for
enhancement of amount of Rs.34,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month to
petitioner no.1/wife, respondent no.2 and 3/ minor children.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that marriage was solemnized between
husband- Lovedeep Singh Bhatia and wife-Simran Kaur on 15.09.2018 as
per rituals of hindu sikh. Out of the wedlock respondent no.2 and 3 were
born on 09.11.2019 at Ahmedabad Gujarat and presently respondent no.2
and 3 are with respondent no.1.mother.
4. An application claiming Rs.2 Lacs per month for residence,
medical treatment, transportation etc. was preferred on 15.02.2022 alleging
harassment, neglect for maintenance, inability to maintain themselves and
sufficient means of the husband. It is specifically alleged that during
pregnancy it was revealed through sonography that she conceived twins
children and one of the child is not in good health. She gave birth to twins
and one of the born child was not in good health and the mother of the
husband was not in favour that child came in the world with some ailment so
he be removed because his whole life will be liability on the family and
denied for his treatment. Thereafter, many acts of harassment and cruelty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
3 CRR-3235-2024
were committed. Respondent no.1 alongwith children were sent to the
maternal home of wife on March, 2020. No arrangement for maintenance
including the treatment were made whereas revision petitioner/husband is
running a transport business at Ahmedabad in the name of M/s. H.K. Bhatia
Transport and owns a luxurious home in Shahibhaug area of Ahmedabad,
Gujarat.
5. Application was replied and all the allegations were denied and it
was alleged that wife took her Streedhan on 24.02.2021 and went to the
maternal home. His mother is old lady aged 68 years and suffering from
various ailments. Wife is living separately without sufficient cause. He is the
only child to the parents and he belongs to a humble background. Marriage
was solemnizeid in a very simple arrangement. He took every efforts for the
health of wife and children. Respondent no.1/wife did not disclosed that she
is suffering from Thalassemia since her childhood and due to the negligence
of wife child also contracted health issues. Wife always threatens to return to
maternal home and in case he denies then she will harm herself. He does not
possess sufficient means. His earning is revealed on the strength of 2 Mini
Truck Vehicle. He got the house in gift and the house is very small whereas
wife was earning 8,000/- to 10,000/- per month from Minie Miracles
International School. His father is also suffering from various ailments and
he has to bear the medical expenses of the parents also. The amount is
exclusively high hence, it has to be set aside or reduced.
6. The Family Court Indore has recorded the testimony of respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
4 CRR-3235-2024
no.1/wife Simran as PW-1 and admitted documents as Exhibit-P-1 to P-48.
Revision petitioner/husband examined himself as DW-1 and adduced the
documents Exhibit-D-1 to D-17.
7. Family Court Indore appreciated the evidence and recorded the
findings that respondent no.1 wife earns no income due to the circumstances
created by the ill health of younger son Sachman Singh who is stroke
affected and requires continuous care whereas husband is proprietor of M/s.
H.K. Bhatia Transport and owns a luxurious home in Shahibhaug area of
Ahmedabad, Gujarat and earns rental income and his per month income is
Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. Considering the educational, treatment expense
maintenance was awarded partially to the extent as mentioned in para-1 of
the judgment.
8. Challenging the order the Criminal No.3235/2024 is preferred on
the ground that factors laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and
another (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not been followed. The status of parties has
not been taken into consideration. Reasonable needs of the wife and
depended children has not been discussed, educational qualification of the
wife has not been considered. Financial capacity of the husband, his actual
income reasonable expenses, reasonable expenses for own expenses,
expenses for ailing old aged parents have not been considered. Factum that
respondent no.1 is residing separately without sufficient reasons has not been
considered. It has not been considered that respondent no.1/wife has not
disclosed the truth regarding her income. The Amount of maintenance is on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
5 CRR-3235-2024
higher side if income of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month is taken into
consideration when revision petitioner is bearing the responsibility of old
aged parents.
9. Heard.
10. Counsel for the wife and minor children opposes the revision
petition and argued that revision petitioner/ husband could succeed in
concealing his actual income on paper but his attempt is false in concealing
the income through his luxurious life and expensive motor bike Harley
Davidson.
11. Perused the record.
12. Regarding the scope and object of power of revision the following
observations of the Apex Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The
State Of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204 is being reproduced as below:-
"10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the
concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review
the evidence again unless there are exceptional
circumstances justifying the departure from the normal
practice."
13. Marriage was solemnized on 15.09.2018 and as per para-18 of
revision petitioner/husband the wife is living separately from 14.02.2021 and
as per para-8 of additional reply of husband the dispute started since March,
2020 and in that para it is mentioned that younger son Sachman Singh was
not physically healthy and he was taken to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for
a period of one month & Exhibit-P/25 to P/29 reveals that respondent no.3 is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
6 CRR-3235-2024
being treated for neuro rehabilitation at Vishesh Jupiter Hospital, Indore and
due to chronic malnutrition and growth delay and requires regular follow up
due to cystic encephalomalacia in left side of brain and exevation dilation of
both excipital bones and cortical laminar necrosis. Accordingly the finding
of the trial court that despite having educational qualification of MBA
professional degree respondent no.1 is unable to maintain herself and minor
children due to full time engagement in caring the respondent no.3 are not
perverse. Dispute arose after birth of respondent no.3 with challenges and
this is the mother/ respondent no.1 who is taking the challenges of all odds
but the father who should have to take more challenges or atleast should have
support the respondent no.1/wife is shirking the liability for one or another
reasons. He is enjoying the personal life with expensive bikes. Here is not a
case when a wife is claiming maintenance for her luxuries but claiming the
maintenance due to the circumstances arose due to equal participation of
revision petitioner/ husband and it is the bounden duty of the revision
petitioner/husband to bear that duty with all sincerity and use all the
resources but the arguments advanced by the revision petition/husband does
not reflect his sincerity.
14. When the arguments are considered in the light of para-24, 26, 27,
30, 31 and 33 of the cross-examination of revision petitioner/husband
examined as DW-1 this revision petition has no substance and is hereby
dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which is payable to wife-Simran Kaur.
15. Now come to Criminal Revision No.2477/2024 which is preferred
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27741
7 CRR-3235-2024
on the ground that trial court has not considered the age and health
conditions of the petitioners no.2 and 3, whereby the maximum resources,
care and attention is required for the upbringing of the twins.
16. Considering the findings recorded in Para-59 and 60 of the
judgment in the light of evidence adduced by the revision petitioner/wife and
respondent/husband and the amount of maintenance awarded, the
enhancement of the maintenance amount has no strength and accordingly
Criminal Revision No.2477/2024 is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
