Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Jarat Kumar Jain, J.
Anil —Appellant
versus
Smt. Sunita and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Revision No.829 of 2014
Decided on 29.11.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant: Shri S.J. Polekar, learned Counsel
For the Respondent No. 1: Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Counsel
For the Respondent No. 2:Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Woman who voluntarily deserts her matrimonial home is not entitled to get maintenance from her husband.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance—Quantum—Family Court directed applicant/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to non-applicant/wife—Non-applicant-wife resided in her matrimonial home for first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days and it is alleged that in these 12 days she was harassed—It is practically impossible that she could have been so harassed that it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home—After 12 days she had voluntarily gone with her brother with a view to select a girl for marriage of her brother—It cannot be held that she was thrown with force from her matrimonial home or she was forced to leave her matrimonial home—Finding of Trial Court that non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately is not sustainable in law—Order passed by Trial Court set-aside. (Paras 11 and 13)
Result:Revision Petition allowed.
Jarat Kumar Jain, J.—This revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C.No.203/2014 where by directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of order.
2. It is an admitted fact that applicant(s) marriage was performed with non-applicant on 20.04.2008 and they lived together first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days i.e. 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008. Thereafter non-applicant/wife had left matrimonial home and since then she is living in her parental home at
Ratlam. She is an enrolled Advocate since the year 1991.
3. Non-applicant/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating that when she lived in her matrimonial home since 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008 during that period her husband (applicant) and mother-in-law had so harassed her that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home, before leaving the matrimonial home her signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Applicant’s first marriage was performed with Ranjana but only after two months she divorced the applicant due to harassment of applicant. Non-applicant is having no means to maintain herself whereas applicant is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicine and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. On these grounds she claimed maintenance @ Rs.5,000 per month from the date of application.
4. Applicant in the reply denied the allegations and stated that he and his mother had never harassed the non-applicant. On 23.05.2008, in the absence of applicant non-applicant had left matrimonial home along with her brother Anil and one Shrenik Bapna. On 26.05.2008 applicant went to Ratlam to take non-applicant with him, however, she refused to come with the applicant, thereafter applicant made many attempts to take back her but she was not ready to come back and live with applicant. Thus, she is living in her parental home without any reason. The applicant is hardly earned Rs.3,000/- per month and he has to maintain his sick mother also; whereas non-applicant is an Advocate and has sufficient income to maintain herself. In such circumstances, she is not entitled for maintenance.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence. Trial Court held that the non-applicant was harassed by her mother-in-law and applicant. Hence, she had sufficient reason not to live with her husband/applicant. Applicant is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per year whereas non-applicant/wife had no income from the profession as an Advocate. Hence, Trial Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of order. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and is living in her parental home without any reason. The finding of trial court that only in 12 days non-applicant was so harassed that she was forced to leave matrimonial home is erroneous. Actually she is practicing lawyer since the year 1991 at Ratlam and has sufficient income to maintain herself. Thus, she is not entitled for maintenance. Trial court gave a finding that applicant used to earn Rs.50,000/- per year; whereas directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per year to the non-applicant. Such direction is against the evidence on record. Thus, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. For this purpose learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Kushwaha V/s. Smt. Pooja reported in 2014 (2) JLJ 189 and Savita Bai V/s. Prahlad reported in 2013 (3) M.P. Weekly Note 77.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supports the impugned order and submitted that the non-applicant/ wife is ready to live with the applicant; however, due to harassment she is compelled to live separat
