SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Smt. Shikha - Appellant
Vs.
Avaneesh Mahodaya - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3028 of 2019 With Criminal Revision No. 3931 of 2022
Decided On : 10-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Syed Asif Ali Warsi, Shri Rajat Raghuwanshi, Advs.
For the Respondent: Shri Rajat Raghuwanshi, Shri Syed Asif Ali Warsi, Advs.

The court emphasized that maintenance must reflect the financial status of both parties, ensuring the wife maintains a standard of living consistent with her marriage while considering her earning capacity.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Maintenance - The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month to the wife, which was contested by both parties in revisions - The husband claimed the wife was living separately without cause and had her own income, while the wife alleged harassment and sought maintenance based on the husband's earnings. (Paras 2-3, 5-6)

(B) Maintenance - The obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is emphasized, particularly when the wife is unable to maintain herself - The court must consider the financial status of both parties and the standard of living the wife was accustomed to. (Paras 8, 14)

(C) Quantum of Maintenance - The court found the awarded maintenance of Rs.60,000/- excessive given the wife's earning capacity and the husband's financial obligations, ultimately reducing it to Rs.40,000/-. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging harassment and seeking Rs.60,000/- per month based on the husband's income, while the husband claimed she was self-sufficient and living separately without cause.

Findings of Court:
The court found the husband liable for maintenance but deemed the amount awarded excessive, reducing it to Rs.40,000/- per month.

Issues: The main issues were the wife's entitlement to maintenance and the appropriate quantum considering both parties' financial situations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the husband has a higher obligation to provide maintenance, the amount must be reasonable and reflect both parties' financial capabilities.

Result: Cr.R. No.3028/2019 dismissed; Cr.R. No.3931/2019 partly allowed, reducing maintenance to Rs.40,000/- per month.

ORDER :

Both the Criminal Revisions are arising out of the same order and hence both the revisions are being heard and decided with this common order analogously.

2. These criminal revisions have been preferred under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, r/w S. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the Husband and Wife respectively being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C No.295/2015 whereby learned Principal Judge allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the wife by directing the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- to the wife, per month.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the wife has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Indore seeking maintenance from the husband. As per her application, she got married with her husband by Hindu rights and rituals on 27.11.2023. She stayed with her husband and her in-laws at Pune, Abu-Dhabi and Dubai, wherein she was performing her duty as an ideal wife and always taken care of her husband and his family members. It has been alleged in the application that the husband has not taken care of her and used to harass her physically and mentally. In the year 2006 wife got pregnant and at that time also the petitioner used to harass her and subjected her to perform heavy house hold work due to which she suffered a miscarriage. She was continuously subjected to torture due to which many a times she was compelled to stay at her maternal house. Husband has also refused to take her to Dubai so also he threatened her to kill if she comes to Dubai, Thereafter, she started residing in her maternal house. It is further alleged in the application that the husband is working as vice president in Citi Bank, Dubai and earning 1,60,000 Diram per annum i.e. 13,333/- Diram per month and in addition to that income he earns Rs.50,000/-, hence in order to live a life in accordance with standard of living of her husband, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month.

4. The aforesaid facts were denied by the husband in his reply to the application by stating that the wife is living separately from the husband without any sufficient cause. She used to doubt about the character of her husband and used to create disputes with him. Wife is a well educated lady employed in a Bank at Dubai and used to earn AED 3500/- (Rs.75000/- in Indian Currency) per month. At Indore also she was earning Rs.50,000/- by running a coaching center and beauty parlour. The wife is unnecessarily threatening the husband to rope him in false cases, while leaving her matrimonial house. The husband has the responsibility of his parents who are aged about 80 years hence she is not entitled for any maintenance.

5. Learned trial Court, on due consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, allowed the application vide the impugned order and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.60000/- per month to the wife from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment parties have preferred this revision petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the wife has pleaded in his argument that the learned Family Court has passed the order only on the basis of husband's averments, the trial Court did not pay any heed on the evidence available on record. As per salary certificate (June 2018) of husband (Ex. D/7) the husband is receiving total salary of 35364/- Diram per month and after deduction of house rent allowance and other allowances he is receiving 19834/- Diram and he is also entitled for the rental allowance of 15,500/- Diram out of which he was paying only 6000 Dirams as house rent and 9000 Diram was his savings which fact the trial Court has ignored while awarding maintenance. In addition he is earning Rs.50000/- as rental income from his houses at Pune and Andheri, Mumbai, therefore, considering all proper perspectives of ongoing expenditures nowadays, the

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top