The court established that maintenance considerations must include the financial ability of the husband and the welfare of the children.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3085 of 2024 SMT. BHAVNA AND OTHERS Versus KULDEEP SHARMA Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Chhajed- Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Nidhi Bohara- Advocate for the respondent.

(Heard on: 15.07.2025)

(Delivered on: 08.10.2025)

ORDER This criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2024 passed in MJCR No.76/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam whereby application for maintenance regarding revision petitioner no.1 has been rejected and in respect of revision petition no.2 and 3 it has been partially allowed to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month (each) till their attaining the age of majority from the date of application i.e. 09.02.2018.

2. Undisputed facts are that revision petitioner no.1 was married to the respondent on 24.02.2000 as per the hindu rituals and out of their wedlock revision petitioner no.2 was born on 17.11.2000 and revision petitioner no.3 was born on 16.01.2002. Couple alongwith children were residing together till 26.05.2017 at matrimonial house situated at Ujjain. Presently revision petitioners were residing at Ratlam at the parental home of revision petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT no.1. The marriage between revision petitioner no.1 and respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce dated 21.12.2022 in RCS/HM/464/2019 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain (M.P.) and dissolution of marriage has been stayed by the court.

3. Facts in brief are that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C ., 1973 was preferred on 09.02.2018 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam (M.P.) seeking Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to revision petitioner no.1/ wife and Rs.25,000/- each to revision petitioner nos.2 and 3 in total Rs.65,000/- alleging neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain themselves and sufficiency of means of the husband.

4. Application was contested by filing reply on the ground that revision petitioner No.2 and 3 are major and revision petitioner No.1/wife has deserted him and took all valuable articles from the house of his parents. She has withdrawn all the amount deposited in the joint account. She always used to insult him and his family members. When she lodged FIR against his father then his father also lodged FIR against her in the year 2015. She is only child of her parents. She inherited whole property of her parents whereas respondent/husband is earning nothing. He lost his job and the family business has been shut down. Presently he is depended on his sister and brother-in-law. His early deposits and income were consumed in the education of revision petitioner no.2 and 3.

5. Trial court recorded the testimony of revision petitioner no.1/Bhavna and admitted the documents as Exhibit P/1 to P/22. Respondent/husband examined himself as DW-1 and adduced the documents Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT as Exhibit D/1 to D/3.

6. Appreciating the evidence the trial court refused the claim of revision petitioner no.1 by recording the finding that revision petitioner No.1 is living separately without sufficient reason and further recorded the finding that revision petitioner No.2 and 3 have attained majority but they are entitled for maintenance till the age of majority from the date of application and allowed the application partially as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment.

7. Challenging the impugned order this criminal revision is preferred on the ground that trial court recorded the finding that revision petitioner No.1 is living separately without any sufficient cause is perverse and rejecting the claim of maintenance is illegal. The amount of maintenance granted in favour of revision petitioner No.2 and 3 is insufficient and have been granted without taken into consideration the expen