IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24913 of 2024 TANAY MABEN Versus AKANKSHA ARORA Appearance:

Shri Amit Dave - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Gurdeep Singh Wadhwa - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of CrPC is filed for setting aside the order dated 27.05.2024 wherein the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Betul has rejected an application under Section 311 of CrPC filed by the petitioner to recall the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Jabalpur. The said case is pending before the Court for recording of the evidence of the applicant/respondent. Meanwhile, after recording of the evidence of the respondent, petitioner has preferred an application under Section 91 of the CrPC on the ground that respondent during her statement stated that she is unemployed and not working anywhere because of which she requires maintenance. It is submitted that the respondent has also filed incomplete affidavit with in of the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. It is further submitted that respondent is working in a multinational company and earning sufficient salary to maintain herself.

3. It is submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. without appreciating the fact that respondent herself has given false statements before the Court and when the petitioner got to know about the said employment, in order to avoid cross examination respondent is taking the ground that the petitioner has preferred the application under Section 311 of CrPC with motive to delay the trial.

4. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent, in her affidavit, stated that she was undergoing a training period prior to her cross-examination, whereas during her examination she categorically stated that she is unemployed and entirely dependent upon her family. This material contradiction goes to the root of her claim of financial need and raises serious doubt regarding her entitlement to maintenance. In these circumstances, recalling the respondent for further examination, as sought by the petitioner, is essential for the proper adjudication of the dispute and to enable the Family Court to arrive at a just and fair decision.

5. On perusal of the record and the impugned order dated 27.05.2024, it is evident that the respondent submitted an affidavit disclosing her income in compliance with the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), and her evidence was duly recorded by the trial Court, where she was cross-examined in detail by the petitioner. The respondent also placed on record her bank account statements and employment details reflecting the change in income. Since the disclosure was complete and the petitioner had already availed the opportunity to cross- examine her on this aspect, the trial Court rightly rejected the application under Section 311 CrPC. It is further noted that despite being granted seven opportunities to lead evidence, the petitioner failed to do so and instead resorted to dilatory tactics.

6. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases of patent illegality or abuse of process of court. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(B. P. SHARMA)

JUDGE L.Raj