IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH th ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2024 FIRST APPEAL No. 218 of 2017 MANGUSINGH Versus SURAJBAI Appearance:

Senior Advocate Shri Sunil Jain alongwith Shri Kunjan Mittal -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshat Pahadia - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER This first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, 1908 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decreed dated 19.12.16 in regular civil suit No.1-A/2013 passed by Vth Additional Judge, District Mandsaur whereby the amount of maintenance in favour of respondent has been enhanced from Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month payable from 19.12.2016 under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The charge also has been created on the immovable property for recovery of the amount of maintenance.

2. Facts in brief are that appellant is the husband of respondent Surajbai and maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month was awarded payable from 04.11.2002 in favour of respondent/wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 by judgment and decree dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA

13.06.2006 in regular civil suit No.8-A/2005 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mandsaur and a charge was also created on the immovable property for insuring the recovery of maintenance amount.

3. Respondent/wife filed a civil suit under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month and a creation of charge in immovable property situated at village Garrawad, Tehsil Malhargarh District Mandsaur for ensuring the recovery of maintenance. The civil suit was registered as civil suit No.39-A/2012 and later on the case was re-numbered as civil suit No.41-A/2013.

4. The defendant/appellant filed the written statement and denied the change of circumstances warranting the enhancement of maintenance submitting that wife have deserted the husband since Samavat 2026 without any cause and went to live with her uncle voluntarily and did not returned to join the company of her husband, despite the efforts of husband. Respondent/wife ended the marital relations with appellant/husband as per customs prevalent in their society. Respondent/wife's application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C was also dismissed. Respondent/wife has filed the application suppressing the fact that she is BPL (Below Poverty Line) card holder and she gets the benefits under various schemes including pension of Rs.3,00/- per month in social security pension scheme and also getting the earning from 1.56 hectare land recieved under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 after the death of her father.

5. A counter claim was filed to setaside the judgment and decree Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA dated 13.07.2006 in regular civil suit No.08-A/2005. Counter claim was replied by the wife submitting that the income from the agricultural land of husband has been increased in many folds and her living cost has increased five times. Respondent/wife is getting only subsistence help from the BPL card and that could not be the basis for setting aside the maintenance order passed in her favour.

6. Trial Court framed a total three issues and recorded the evidence of respondent/wife Surajbai as PW-1 and admitted the documents Ex.P-1 to P-46 filed on behalf of the respondent/wife whereas the appellant/husband examined himself as DW-1 and examined witness Jhujhar Singh as DW-2 and adduced the documents Ex.D-1 to D-3.

7. Appreciating the evidence, trial Court dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellant and decreed the suit of the respondent/wife partially enhancing the maintenance creating charge on immovable property as mentioned in para 01 of the judgment.

8. Challenging the dismissal of counter claim and enhancement of maintenance this appeal has been preferred on the ground that family Court ignored the fact that respondent ha