IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1978 of 2018 SMT JYOTI DEVRA AND OTHERS Versus SANJAY SINGH DEVRA Appearance:

Shri Rizwan Nizam - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Brijesh Garg- Advocate for the respondent [R-1].

(Heard on: 14.01.2026)

(Delivered on : 23.02.2026)

ORDER This criminal revision under section 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 read with section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is preferred being aggrieved by judgment dated 14.03.2018 in MJCR N0.108/2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam Cantt. Jhabua (MP) whereby application for maintenance of the revision petitioners have been rejected.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that:- revision petitioner no.1 was married to respondent on 11.05.2011 at Ranapur, District- Jhabua (MP) as per hindu rituals and revision petitioner no.2 was born out of their wedlock in the year 2013. On 01.10.2025 an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred seeking maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to revision petitioner no.1/ wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to revision petitioner no.2 minor child alleging neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain themselves and sufficiency of means of the respondent/husband with specific allegations that respondent/husband belongs affluent family as he is having agricultural land at Petlawad, District Jhabua and owns a three storey house at Ratlam in which he is running printing press and earns Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per month and she is residing at Ranapur, Jhabua (MP).

3. Application was contested and replied by the respondent/husband on the ground that during short period of marriage parents of the revision petitioner no.1 separated husband and wife. Revision petitioner no.1 also not willing to live with respondent/husband. Revision petitioner no.1 received all Streedhan. They separated on 03.07.2011 and never lived together. He never thrown away revision petitioner no.1 on 29.08.2015 or on any other date. She deserted the husband without any cause. Husband has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Ratlam. Revision petitioner no.1 is working as a teacher in a school at Ranapur, Jhabua. She is earning sufficiently to maintain herself and minor daughter whereas he earns his livelihood by working as part-time job of printing at a computer center at Ratlam who pays him Rs.1,500/- per month only.

4. Trial court has recorded the testimony of revision petitioner no.1 Jyoti Devra as PW-1 and admitted documents and Respondent husband examined himself as NAW-1 and examined Bharat Singh Devra as NAW-2 and Bhawar Singh Chouhan as NAW-3 and adduced exhibit D/1 to D/7. Appreciating the evidence trial court rejected the application recording the finding that applicant Jyoti PW-1 has not examined any family member in her support. She has not examined her landlord also and her testimony cannot be relied. She has forced the husband to live separately from his parents. She is not entitled for any maintenance.

5. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition is preferred.

6. Counsel for the respondent opposed the revision petition.

7. The finding of the trial court that she forced the husband to live separately from his parents has been recorded ignoring the para-17 of the respondent/husband who has been examined as NAW-1 on 16.11.2017 in which he has stated that he has separated from his parents after two months of the marriage and is still living separately at Thawariya Market, Ratlam. As par his statement in para-9 that revision petitioner/wife is not living with him since 2015 then there is no occasion to live separately from his parents upto 10.11.2017 accordingly his separation from his parents is not due to the insistence of the revision petitioner/wife but his choice. He admitted in para- 19 that he is liable to maintain his wife and minor child born in the year 2013. He stated in para-16 that he us