IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 13 OF DECEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1638 of 2018 BHOOPENDRA SINGH GURJAR Versus BHARTI ALIAS NEELU AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajiv Shrivastava - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section

19(4) of Family Court Act has been filed against the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Guna in MJCR No.17/2017 by which monthly maintenance amount of Rs.4000/- has been awarded to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.4000/- has been awarded to respondent No.2 till he attains majority or till further orders.

2 . It is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant had filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Decree was passed, but respondent No.1 did not join the company of applicant and therefore, application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC was filed for execution of decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The said application was filed on 19.02.2018. Later on, execution proceedings were withdrawn and petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 13.08.2020 and by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashoknagar in RCS(HM) No.26/2020, ex-parte decree for divorce has been Signature Not Verified granted.

3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that it is clear from the conduct of respondent No.1 that she had refused to join the company of applicant, therefore, she was residing separately without any valid reason and thus, she is not entitled for monthly maintenance amount. However, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant has no objection so far as maintenance amount has been granted to respondent No.2.

4. Per contra, revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents.

By referring to paragraph 6.8, 6.9, 6.10 of memo of revision, it is submitted that in fact it was the applicant, who was not ready to take respondent No.2 with him despite of the order given by trial Court. Thus, it is incorrect to say that respondent No.1 was not ready and willing to reside with applicant or she was residing separately without any reason.

5. Heard counsel for the parties.

6. The moot question for consideration is that after decree of divorce is passed whether maintenance amount can be refused to divorced wife on the ground that she was residing separately without any valid reason or not ?

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Rohtash Singh. Vs. Ramendri (Smt.)

and others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 180 has held as under:-

"7. The second ground on which she would not be entitled to Maintenance Allowance is the ground of her refusal to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. This also presupposes the subsistence of marital relations between the parties. If the marriage subsists, the wife is under a legal and moral obligation to live with her husband and to fulfil the marital obligations. She cannot, without any sufficient reason, refuse to live with her husband. "Sufficient reasons" have been interpreted differently by the High Courts having regard to the facts of indivisual cases. We are not required to go into that question in the present case as admittedly the marriage between the parties came to an end on account of a decree for divorce having been passed by the Family Court. Existence of sufficient cause on the basis Signature Not Verified of which the respondent could legitimately refuse to live with the petitioner is not relevant for the present case. In this situation, the only question which survives for consideration is whether a wife against whom a decree for divorce has been passed on account of her deserting the husband can claim Maintenance Allowance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and how far can the plea of desertion be treated to be an effective plea in support of the husband's