IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI st ON THE 21 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 790 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SHIV KUMAR MEHRA S/O SHRI RAMKESH MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK VILLAGE DHANGAON TEHSIL SIHORA DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR SAINI - ADVOCATE)

AND UTKARSH MEHRA S/O SHRI SHIV KUMAR MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH LEGAL GARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ARCHANA MEHRA UMARIYAPAN AT PRESENT ADDRESS SMT. ARCHANA MEHRA DAUGHTER OF SHRI MATHURA PRASAD MEHRA OCCUPATION GOVET. PRIMARY SCHOOL DUNDI POST OFFICE SAHALAWAN PIPARIYA TEHSIL DHIMARKHERA DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This Review Petition has been filed seeking quashment of order dated

31/01/2023 passed by Family Court Katni, by which an application filed by respondent has been allowed and an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been fixed as monthly maintenance.

2. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case it escaped the Signature Not Verified attention of the Court that the wife of the applicant despite there being a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act refused to cohabit with the applicant, therefore, there was wilful desertion by the wife of the applicant, thus, taking into consideration the said circumstances, there could not have been any order of maintenance in favour of the respondent who is the son of the applicant.

3. It is also contended by the counsel that the mother of the applicant's wife is Government Servant and has drawing salary of Rs.45,000/- and therefore, taking into consideration the income of the mother of the applicant's wife, the impugned order is unjustified and could not have been passed.

4. Considering the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant and perusal of the record, it is evident that the present applicant by filing a reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. had taken recourse to a stand in paragraph 7 of the reply that he was unemployed and was not getting the work of labour. Here before this Court along with the memorandum of Criminal Revision, a certificate dated 24/03/2020 has been brought on record and according to which the applicant herein was working as Teacher in Nahush Public High School, Mohla and was getting Rs,4,000/- as monthly remuneration. The factum of this certificate is conspicuously missing in the reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant before the Family Court, Katni.

5. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court has since passed the order while placing reliance on the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Rinku Jain Vs. Jeevan Lal reported in 2000 द. िन. प. 441 (Allahabad), the Court did not commit any error while passing the order of maintenance in favour of the applicant's son. The son of Signature Not Verified the applicant at the time of passing of order was aged about 12 years and is now must be aged about 13 years thus, has a right to receive maintenance form his father/applicant who is biological guardian/father.

6. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI)

JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified