IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1064 of 2024 RAJU @ RAJENDRA SAHU Versus HARSHITA SAHU Appearance:

Shri Satyendra Jain - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Dharmendra Patel - Advocate for the respondent.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6135 of 2024 SMT. HARSHITA SAHU Versus RAJU URF RAJENDRA SAHU Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Patel - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Satyendra Jain - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid Criminal Revisions. For the purposes of convenience facts from Cr.R 1064/2024 are taken note of.

2. Both Criminal Revisions emanate from the order dated 20.1.2024 passed in M.J.C.R No. 702/2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara, allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 granting maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the respondent (wife).

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the order of fixation of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR maintenance goes contrary to the salary of the applicant as the trial Court himself in paragraph 16 of the judgment has arrived at a conclusion that the salary of the present applicant is R.12,959/- per month, therefore, the amount of maintenance is even more than half of the salary of the present applicant. The impugned order goes contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy [(2017) 14 SCC 200], which has further been relied upon by Indore Bench of this Court in Shaleen v. Smt. Nikhil Sharma (order dated 4.7.2023 in Cr.R No.

2962/2022).

4. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant-husband that since the amount of maintenance is not in consonance with the salary of the applicant; therefore, the same needs to be set aside.

5. Per contra counsel for the respondent wife contends that the order does not require any interference inasmuch as the order granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- has not been complied with and an outstanding as on date is more than 3,00,000/-. It is contended by the counsel that the order is proper and does not require any interference. Counsel for respondent wife contends that even the order of maintenance is not sufficient as the applicant owns immovable property which are detailed in paragraph 16 of the judgment; therefore, connected Criminal Revision bearing Cr.R. No. 6135/2024 has been filed.

6. No other point is pressed or argued by the counsel for the parties.

7. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR parties, perusal of record and the judgment passed by the Court in paragraph 16 concluded that the salary of the present applicant is Rs.12959/- and apart from the salary certain immovable property which are in the name of the present applicant has also been discussed. The Court has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.7000/- The Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra) held in paragraph 15 as under:

"15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-2015 [Rita Dey Chaudhury v. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10447] awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95,527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129] , in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the