MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J.
Arif Khan - Appellant
Versus
Ruby Khan And Another - Respondents
Cr. R. No. 4737 of 2019
Decided On : 02-03-2020
Maintenance - Criminal Revision - Section 125 of CrPC - Section 12 of DV Act - [125 CrPC, 12 DV Act] - The court awarded maintenance to the wife and daughter based on the husband's income and assets. The court considered the wife's statement and the husband's lack of evidence to prove his lower income. The court also discussed the adjustment of interim maintenance under the DV Act with the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The wife and daughter filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, alleging harassment and demand for dowry by the husband and his family. The Family Court awarded maintenance to the wife and daughter. The husband filed a criminal revision, claiming lower income and seeking to set aside the maintenance order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband's income was higher than claimed and that he failed to provide evidence to support his lower income. The court also discussed the adjustment of interim maintenance under the DV Act with the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of CrPC.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of maintenance amount based on the husband's income and assets, and the adjustment of interim maintenance under the DV Act with the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the wife's statement and the lack of evidence from the husband to prove his lower income. The court also referred to previous cases to support the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and children.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision, modifying the maintenance order to adjust the interim maintenance under the DV Act with the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of CrPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Applicant had filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in MJC No.89/2018, whereby the learned court directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m. to respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to respondent No.2 (daughter) as maintenance.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that, both respondents filed an application under section 125 of CrPC against applicant for maintenance, alleging therein that respondent No.1 got married with the applicant by Muslim Custom, and respondent No.2 is born out of that wedlock. After marriage, applicant and his family members started demanding extra money from parents of respodent No.1, for purchasing JCB. At the time of marriage, parents of respondent No.1 provided two lacs rupees cash, ornaments and one motorcycle to the applicant, but inspite of that applicant himself and his parents started demanding dowry and passed vulgar comments and sometimes they also beat respondent No.1. After giving birth to respondent No.2, harassment by applicant and other family members were increased, as she had given birth to a girl child, whereas they want a boy child. They took ornaments and other articles provided by her parents and expelled her from house and threatened her for divorce. Then she reported this matter to the Superintendent of Police Katni and also lodged a report in Mahila Thana, Katni and started living along with her daughter in her parental house. She is not having any means of income and when applicant denied for giving any maintenance then she filed the application before the Family Court, Katni. Applicant denied all the facts, as alleged in the application by respondent No.1. Learned Family Court, after recording the evidence of both side passed the impugned order dated 05.04.2019, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by that order of maintenance, applicant filed this criminal revision on the ground that the applicant is earning only Rs.8,000/- per month and the amount awarded by the learned court is on higher side.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, Respondent No.1 have also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) and in that case also she is getting Rs.2,500/- per month as interim maintenance. Learned Family Court not adjusted that amount in the maintenance allowance. Learned counsel further submits that, as applicant is only earning Rs.8,000/- per month and learned Family Court awarded total Rs,8,000/- as maintenance, that is not sustainable.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Mohit Jain vs. Sonali Jain in Criminal Revision No.917/2017 dated 10th April, 2018, Sunil Lodhi vs Smt. Vimlesh Lodhi in Criminal Revision No. 110/2015 dated 13.02.2017, and Gaurav Dhabhai vs. smt. Aasha Dhabhai, in Criminal Revision No.3720/2018 dated 15.10.2019 and prays to set aside the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that applicant is earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month. He is a Contractor, he is having JCB Machine and maintaining four wheeler car, his earning is more than Rs.50,000/- per month and submits that learned trial court have not erred in awarding maintenance allowance and prays to dismiss this revision.
6. Having heard both the counsel perused the record of MJC No.89/2018. Both parties adduced the evidence. Respondent No.1 recorded her statement as witness No.1, she categorically stated that applicant is having Tractor, Dumper, JCB Machine and other vehicles and run those vehicles on rent. Apart from this, the applicant is working as a Contractor and earns approximately Rs.2 lacs. She also submit some photographs of the applicant along with the veh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.