Being crestfallen by order dated 07.09.2020 passed by learned 3^rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 301/2016,

whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order dated

16.02.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in MJCR

No.18680/2015 and awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- as maintenance

per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.05.2015.

2.

It emerged as the undisputed facts that marriage was solemnized

between Late Shri Babulal Jain and respondent/non-applicant-Urmila

on 19.02.1994 and after 7 months Shri Babulal Jain had expired on

19.09.1994. The petitioner No. 1 -Manoharlal Jain is brother of Late

Shri Babulal Jain and brother-in-law (Jeth) of the respondent/non-

applicant and petitioner No. 2 is son of Shri Manoharlal Jain and

nephew (bhajita) of Late Shri Babulal Jain as well.

3.

The case of respondent in a nutshell is that the respondent/non-

applicant alongwith her daughter resided with the petitioners/applicants

at the residence situated in Mumbai. It is alleged that in the year 2006,

the petitioners/applicants started damaging the social reputation of

respondent/non-applicant and her daughter by making false allegations

upon them. The petitioners/applicants had sold the flat of

respondent/non-applicant situated at Mahad, Mumbai and also grabbed

the money received from insurance of her husband. It is further alleged

that the respondent/non-applicant was residing in Mumbai in a rented

house on the instructions of her father-in-law. Thereafter, she came to

Indore and resided alongwith her daughter, wherein, Rs.10,000/- was

used to be paid by the petitioners/applicants per month for household

expenses. Afterwards, in the month of November, 2012, the

- : 3 :-

petitioners/applicants took respondent's daughter in Mumbai.

Thereafter, tortured her mentally and physically as well and left her

Indore after two months.

4.

It is further alleged that the respondent/non-applicant is residing

in Indore with her maternal relatives. The daughter of the

respondent/non-applicant has completed the age of 18 years and she is

unable to complete her education and settle her marriage. It is also

submitted that the petitioners/applicants have a jewellery shop in main

area and luxurious bungalow at prime location in Mumbai. They have

houses and more properties at Bhada (Rajasthan), hence the

respondent/non-applicant is also liable to live in accordance with status

of petitioners/applicants, thus, it is requested that Rs.45,000/- per

month be awarded for maintenance of the respondent/non-applicant

and for her daughter's higher education.

5.

In reply, the petitioners/applicants, while denying the contentions

made by the respondent, has submitted that respondent/non-applicant

herself is running a private institute and is earning of Rs.1,00,000/- per

month from the institute. The daughter of the respondent is a major and

is able to maintain herself and competent to take higher education. The

respondent/non-applicant has gold ornaments of 600 grams of weight

and till November, 2012 she obtained Rs.10,000/- per month from her

father-in-law.

6.

Having considered the averments of petitioners/applicants and

reply of respondent/non-applicant, learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Indore has dismissed the application filed by the

respondent/non-applicant expressing the opinion that the

respondent/non-applicant is not entitled to get any maintenance from

her brother-in-law i.e. petitioner/non-applicant No. 1, she is entitled to

- : 4 :-

take maintenance only from her father-in-law. As the father-in-law of

the respondent/non-applicant had already expired, she cannot claim for

maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “D.V. Act,”).

7.

The respondent/non-applicant filed an appeal before the

Additional Sessions Judge, Indore challenging the aforesaid order of

Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein learned A