[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kodatkar vs Smt Renu Kodatkar on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10131
1 CRR-4254-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4254 of 2023
MANOJ KODATKAR
Versus
SMT RENU KODATKAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anmol Khedkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deependra Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
The instant criminal revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act
1984 takes exception to the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Additional Pr. Judge,
Family Court Gwalior in Case No.20128 of 2021 MJCR whereby, the application filed
by the respondents under section 127 of Cr.P.C seeking enhancement of maintenance
has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of
Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs.2500/- per month each to
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with effect from the date of filing of the application.
It is an undisputed fact between the parties that, earlier, an application under
section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the respondents came to be allowed by the Family Court
vide order dated 03.12.2015 whereby, Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance was
awarded to the respondent No.1 whereas, Rs.1000/- each per month was directed to be
given to the respondent Nos 2 and 3 i.e. children of the petitioner. It appears that in the
year 2021, an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C came to be filed by the respondents
seeking enhancement in the maintenance amount awarded vide order dated 03.12.2015.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matrimonial dispute
arose between petitioner and the respondents in July, 2011. The petitioner was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10131
2 CRR-4254-2023
implicated in an offence under section 498A, 323/34 and 506 Part II of IPC on account
of which, he was suspended from his service and in the year 2019 only, he could be
reinstated. He further submits that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Court
below for enhancing the maintenance amount vide impugned order dated 23.06.2023.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places
reliance upon an order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Jain Vs.
Dharam Raj Jain reported in 1992 CRILJ 1028, with reference to para 13, to contends
that the reasons are required to be assigned while granting maintenance by the Family
Court. He further submits that at the best, the maintenance could have been awarded
from the date of order and not from the date of application.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the
order impugned in the instant criminal revision and submits that just and proper
maintenance has been awarded by learned Court below looking to the fact that the
children of the petitioner i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are about 16-17 years as on date.
No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the case in hand is not that for grant of maintenance under section
125 of Cr.P.C but a case under section 127 of the Cr.P.C whereby, the maintenance
granted earlier has been enhanced. In view of the above, the liability of the petitioner to
pay maintenance is not open for further consideration in the present proceedings.
Petitioner, before the trial court has admitted that presently, he is getting
Rs.30247/- as salary as the petitioner is working as peon in the government department.
In 2015, the total maintenance awarded by the family Court to the respondents was
Rs.4500 (2500+1000+1000). In the year 2021, when the application for enhancement
was moved by the respondents, not only the expenses pertaining to the education of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were enhanced as they have now attained the age of 16-17
years but there has been considerable increase in the inflation rate as well. There has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10131
3 CRR-4254-2023
been also increase in the salary of the petitioner. Learned trial court in para 11 of the
order impugned has considered the said aspect and by assigning reasons, enhanced the
maintenance as mentioned therein. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial court
cannot be said to be palpably illegal or perverse. Therefore, order impugned does not
suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court. The reliance placed upon by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner on the case of Smt. Krishna Jain (Supra) may have no applicability in the
given facts of the case, as the reasons for enhancement have been duly mentioned by
the learned trial court in para 11 of the order impugned. In view of the law settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324,
the enhanced maintenance is required to be given from the date of application which
has been rightly directed by learned Court below.
In view of the aforesaid, no case of interference is made out.
This criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Rks
