Sweta Sharma vs Shailendra on 7 November, 2017

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-2483-2015

sh
(SWETA SHARMA Vs SHAILENDRA)

e
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-11-2017

ad
Mr. Jayshree Mukherjee, learned counsel for the applicant.

Pr
Mr. S.K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the non-applicant.
Heard.
a
The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order
hy

dated 09.07.2015 passed the by Principal Judge, Family Court
ad

Khandwa in M.J.C. No.329/2015, thereby rejected the application
M

preferred by the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
of

The marriage of applicant was solemnised with the non-applicant
rt

on 07.02.2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Khandwa
ou

through Chief Minister Kanyadan Yojna. After marriage, the
applicant resided with the non-applicant for about one and half
C

months as wife. During this period a dispute arose between them
h

with regard to demand of dowry and mental cruelty. Applicant
ig

lodged report against the non-applicant and his sister on
H

02.05.2013 at Police Station Nasrullaganj, Sehore. During her
stay at maternal house, the non-applicant threatened her mother,
father and applicant to withdraw the complaint lodged against
him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a
student of Government Sangeet and Lalitkala Mahavidyalaya
Khandwa for doing P.G. in Music. During college hours, non-
applicant went to applicant’s college and threatened the Principal
of the said college also, for which the applicant has lodged FIR
against the non-applicant at Police Station, Khandwa. It is further
been submitted that the non-applicant is Senior Teacher at

sh
Government Naveen Girls School Nasrullaganj having a salary of
15000/- to 20,000/- per month. The trial Court has allowed the

e
ad
application of ad-interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month,
however after recording the evidence, the family Court itself

Pr
disallowed the application preferred by the applicant vide order
dated 09.07.2015. Against the said order, the applicant has filed
a
hy

the present revision.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
ad

unemployed and legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and
M

therefore, it s obligatory on the part of the husband to maintain
of

her. It is further submitted that the family Court has erred in
holding that the applicant is working at Sangeet Mahavidyalaya
rt

whereas in her deposition she has stated that she is a student of
ou

aforesaid Mahavidyalaya. Learned counsel for the applicant
C

further submits that the family Court has erred in holding that the
applicant is not ready to reside with the non-applicant as she is
h
ig

highly qualified as compared to her husband. It is further
submitted that the family Court has erred in holding that the
H

applicant is residing separately from the non-applicant without
any sufficient cause and further that she is highly educated lady
and therefore is able to maintain herself. It is also submitted that
although the applicant is highly educated lady but the fact is that
she at present is unemployed and therefore, just by having a
degree it could not be said that she can maintain herself. Thus,
the family Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred
by the applicant under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has filed

sh
the reply for interim maintenance and stated that in-fact the
applicant never wanted to stay with him as he is less educated

e
ad
than the applicant. The applicant always used to demoralise the
respondent that he is not a perfect match for her. Under such

Pr
circumstances, it was the applicant who left the matrimonial
home without any substantial cause. In such circumstances, as
a
hy

the applicant is residing separately from the non-applicant
without any sufficient cause, therefore, as per
Section 125 of the
ad

Code of Criminal Procedure, she is not entitled to get any
M

maintenance.

of

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as the impugned order. From perusal of the order
rt

passed by the Family Court, it is revealed that the family Court
ou

has rejected the application submitted by the applicant under
C

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on two counts.
Firstly, on the ground that the applicant is residing separately
h
ig

from the non-applicant without any sufficient cause and secondly
on the ground that the applicant is a well educated lady and
H

therefore, she is able to maintain herself. So far as first ground is
concerned, from the record it appears that the non-applicant has
assaulted the applicant number of times and for which FIR was
also lodged by the applicant in the police station. Thus, this is
sufficient ground for the applicant to reside separately from the
non-applicant. So far as second ground is concerned, Allahabad
High Court in the case of Ravi Gopal Upadhyay Vs. Smt.
Urmila Devi and another, (1987) 2 AWC 1395 in paragraph 8
has held as under :

“ In the instant case, the husband, the

sh
applicant is a lecturer in a Post Graduate
College and was getting a sum of Rs.1438.20

e
ad
per month as his salary. But the wife, opposite
party 1, even though she is M.A., B.Ed., but she

Pr
was unemployed. In these days it is not easy to
get an employment even though a lady might
a
hy

be having sufficient educational qualifications.

Unless she was employed, just by having
ad

degrees, it could not be said that she can
M

maintain herself. I am accordingly of the view
of

that even though the opposite party 1 was
having M.A., B.Ed., degree, but as she was
rt

umemployed, she was unable to maintain
ou

herself.”
C

Thus, as per the said decision, even though the applicant is
having sufficient educational qualification but unless and until,
h
ig

she is employed it could not be said that she can maintain herself.
Thus, the family Court has erred in rejecting the application
H

submitted by the applicant for maintenance. Consequently, the
criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 09.07.2015 passed
by family Court is hereby set aside. Looking to the findings
recorded by the family Court regarding income of the non-
applicant, the non-applicant is directed to pay amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance from
the date of the order passed by the family Court.
Certified copy as per rules.

(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR)
JUDGE

e sh
ad
RC

Pr
RASHMI CHIKANE
a
hy

2017.11.10 10:38:37
ad

+05’30’
M
of
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *