(ORDER)

22.02.2021

This criminal revision has been filed on 12.12.2019 under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC and section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 by Veer

Singh Thakur, who was the respondent before the Family Court.

2. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of applicant Veer Singh Thakur with respondent Divya Thakur was solemnized on 29.4.2018 and they are husband and wife. The wife residing separately since 9.11.2018. It means they lived together only between the period 29.4.2018 to 9.11.2018.

3. The respondent/wife filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of CrPC on 27.2.2019 before the Family Court. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seoni registered the aforesaid case as MJCR No.79/2019 and decided on 28.11.2019. By the impugned order, the trial court/Family Court granted the maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/- from the date of order i.e.

28.11.2019 to the wife.

4. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order by filing this criminal revision. During the arguments, it is fairly admitted by the counsel for the applicant that he does not want to challenge the entitlement of the maintenance but amount of Rs.8000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is a higher amount. The applicant is voluntarily agree to pay maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month.

5. To justify the aforesaid request, the counsel for applicant/husband draws attention towards the various paras of the impugned order. It is submitted that as per Para 34 of the impugned order, the trial court admitted the monthly income of respondent as Rs.28,000/- upon the statement of applicant/husband, but not considered the deduction of Rs.16,600/- towards the installment of home loan. The Court did not consider the fact that after payment of the home loan installment, husband is not able to pay maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month.

6. It is also submitted by the counsel for applicant that the wife having the qualification upto M.Sc.D.Ed.and able to earn for herself. Even she worked as Guest Teacher for some time, therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs.8000/- per month should be reduced to Rs.5000/- per month.

7. On the other side, counsel for respondent/wife opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the wife does not having any permanent source of income. Although she is a qualified lady, but not earning any money. Her job was only for temporary period for which no amount was received by her.

8. Counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the law laid down in the case of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000(4) MPHT 457 was qualified upto M.Sc. M.Ed., the High Court observed that the wife is not permitted to remain idle. In Para 6 the High Court mentioned as under:-

6. In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted: Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendente lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition ? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C. M.Ed………..”

9. The aforesaid case is related to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, not Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs. Asha Kumari and another (2018)5 SCC 3