IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH th ON THE 19 OF JULY, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 325 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

MANOHAR LAL JAIN S/O LATE SHRI MANGILAL JAIN OCCUPATION: BUSINESS

1. RAJESH JWELLERS, GATE NO 7, PMC 206 MALWANI, MALAD WEST (MAHARASHTRA)

NILESH JAIN S/O MANOHAR LAL JAIN RAJESH JWELLERS, GATE NO 7, PMC 206

2.

MALWANI, MALAD WEST (MAHARASHTRA)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI MITESH JAIN, ADVOCATE)

AND SMT URMILA W/O LATE SHRI BABULAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 111/2, MALVIYA NAGAR, OPP. BAJRANG TEMPLE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ANISH ASHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH

ORDER

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH 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