IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20878 of 2015 DINESH Versus SMT. REKHA @ SUSHMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri (Dr.) Anuvad Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent No.1.

ORDER The present Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 17/10/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, District Sagar, in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2015, whereby the order dated 01/05/2015 passed by the learned JMFC in MJC No. 154 of 2014, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2, has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order has been passed without due consideration of the defence put forth by the applicant and that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and on the higher side, warranting interference. It has further been argued that the respondent–wife is residing separately of her own volition and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is ready and willing to cohabit with the respondent and, in support thereof, has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights; however, the respondent–wife has refused to resume matrimonial cohabitation. It is thus urged that an adverse inference be drawn against the respondent. Lastly, it is contended that the applicant is a daily wage labourer having limited means of income and is financially incapable of paying the maintenance amount as awarded. He has expressed his willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards maintenance.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent–wife supported the impugned order and submitted that no interference is warranted therein. It was contended that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No. 2 is his son. The factum of marriage has not been denied by the applicant; therefore, it is his legal obligation to maintain his wife and child. It was further argued that the respondent was constrained to reside separately on account of ill-treatment meted out to her by the applicant and his parents. On several occasions, complaints in this regard were made before the competent authority. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the applicant owns a plot at Bina and that his family possesses approximately 20 acres of agricultural land. It was further submitted that the applicant is engaged in his own business and earns approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. A prayer has also been made for enhancement of the maintenance amount on the ground that the impugned order was passed in the year 2015 and nearly ten years have elapsed since then.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case as well as the impugned orders.

5. The facts of the case reveals that the respondent no. 1 is the legally wedded wife and respondent no. 2 is the son of the applicant. The respondent wife is living separately at Khilsama on a rented premises. The record of the case also reveals that except making bald statement that the wife is an earning member, nothing has brought on record to show that the wife has independent income. It was also brought to the notice of the court that the husband has not made any attempt to support his wife or son, while staying separately.

6. The record of the case also reveals that the wife has not produced any document to establish the exact income of the husband. The agricultural land forming part of the record is joint family property, in respect of which documents Exhibits P/1, P/2 and P/3 have been produced. The husband has not been able to prove that the wife is residing separately on her own volition. The record fu