IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and child, and maintenance amounts should be proportionate to his income and their needs.

ORDER :

Vishal Dhagat, J.

Applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 3769/2023 challenging order dated 24-6-2023 passed in Case No. MJCR 106/2018, by Principal Judge, Family Court, Narmadapuram (M.P.). By impugned order, maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded in favour of non applicant No. 1 i.e. wife and Rs. 8000/- in favour of non-applicant No. 2 i.e. son.

2. Non-applicants have also filed Criminal Revision No. 3375/2023 against same order for enhancement of compensation amount. Prayer is made to enhance the amount to Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance.

3. Both the criminal revisions are filed against same impugned order, therefore, matters are taken up for analogous hearing and heard together. Husband is referred as ‘applicant’ and wife and son are referred as ‘non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2’ in the order.

4. Counsel appearing for applicant submitted that non-applicant No. 1 is residing with her parents on her own and she is not ready to reside with applicant. Applicant is having liability of old parents and they suffer from illness and require regular treatment, therefore, maintenance amount is on higher side. It is also submitted that applicant has taken a personal loan of Rs. 27 lakhs and paying EMI of Rs. 52,000/- per month and living in a rented house at District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) and paying rent of Rs. 7000/- per month. Reliance is placed on prescription of doctors. He is also making expenses of Rs. 10,000/- per month for Physiotherapy. Non-applicant No. 1 is self-dependent lady and highly educated and working as Assistant Professor in Engineering College at Agra (Uttar Pradesh) and she is able to maintain herself. In these circumstances, prayed is made that impugned order be set aside.

5. Counsel appearing for non-applicants submitted that applicant had filed a petition for divorce. He never preferred any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Said petition for divorce was dismissed and he has filed application for restoration of same, which shows that applicant does not want to live with non-applicant No. 1. It is further submitted that there is clear and specific finding by trial Court that applicant is remarried to one Beena Sharma. She was living in the same house. Applicant is working as Professor and he had filed an application to add her name in service records. It is impossible for non-applicant No. 1 to live with applicant, as he has done second marriage. Further, non-applicant No. 1 was harassed when she was living along with applicant. She was repeatedly beaten up and tortured. Comments were also made that non-applicant No. 2 is not son of applicant. She was forcibly pushed out and driven out of house. Applicant is earning Rs. 1,33,592/- per month, as has been held by trial Court. Applicant is having sufficient capacity to maintain non-applicants. He is working as Subject Material Scientist in Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. It is also submitted that after award of maintenance amount, applicant is not paying maintenance amount regularly and unnecessarily harassing the non-applicant No. 1 and her son by not paying maintenance amount. It is very difficult for non-applicant No. 1, who is unemployed, to maintain herself and her son. She is totally dependent upon pension of her mother. In these circumstances, prayer is made for enhancement of maintenance amount.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. There is no dispute regarding marriage of applicant with non-applicant No. 1 namely Arpita Sharma. On going through facts of the case, it is found that applicant is married to one Beena Sharma. There is enough evidence available on record on basis of which trial Court has arrived at such a finding. Trial Court has also arrived at a finding on basis of Ex.P/35, which is salary slip of applicant that he is earning Rs. 1,33,592/- per month. From evidence and facts available on record, it is clear that non-applicant No. 1 is not able to maintain herself. Son of non-applicant No. 1