Hemant Kumar Chakradhar vs Vinita Chakradhar on 11 January, 2018

1 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Revision No.609/2015
………Applicant: Hemant Kumar Chakradhar
Versus
………Respondent: Vinita Chakradhar
—————————————————————————————-
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for respondent.
—————————————————————————————-
Date of hearing : 11/01/2018
Date of Order : 11/01/2018
Whether approved for reporting :
Law laid down:

Significant paragraphs:
ORDER

(11/01/2018)
Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia,

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C.

has been filed against the judgment dated 1/7/2015 passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashoknagar in M.Cr.C.

No.182/2015, by which the application filed by the respondent

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant

has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month by way of

maintenance from the date of application.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present

application in short are that the respondent filed an application

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the allegations that she got
2 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

married to the applicant on 5/5/2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

Immediately after the marriage, the applicant and his family

members started passing taunts and harassing her mentally on

the allegation that less dowry has been given and the applicant

would have got more dowry in case had he been married to

somebody else. The applicant and his family members were

demanding either four wheeler or Rs.5,00,000/-. The father of the

respondent is a poor person and is not in a position to fulfill their

demand. The applicant and his family members used to say that in

other marriages the grooms have got a car in dowry and even the

sons of their relatives have got a car in dowry. Since her father

was a poor person, therefore, she was somehow managing the

physical and mental harassment at the hands of the applicant and

his family members under the impression and belief that one day

the situation would improve, but the applicant and his family

members used to beat her and they were also not providing food

to her and she was being treated as a maid/servant. The applicant

was also not treating the respondent as his wife and was insisting

that only after she brings a car, then he would treat her like his

wife. About six months prior to filing of the application the

respondent was turned out of her matrimonial house with a

specific direction that unless and until she brings a car, she should

treat that the relations have already come to an end. The

respondent and her father tried to pursue the applicant and his
3 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

family members on number of occasions, but they did not give up

their demand. In the month of May, 2012 she was given a warning

that either she should bring a car otherwise the applicant would

remarry. Accordingly, a complaint was made to the police officers.

Thus, it was alleged that the applicant is not providing the

maintenance to the respondent and she is unable to maintain

herself and, therefore, a prayer was made for grant of

maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.

The application was opposed by the applicant. The

allegations of demand of dowry were denied. The allegation of

turning her out of matrimonial house was also denied. The

allegation that the applicant was not treating the respondent as his

wife was also denied. In additional statement, it was alleged that

in fact it is the respondent whose behaviour with the applicant and

his family members was not cordial and she always abuses them

and always passes taunts against the applicant and his family

members. She is residing in her parents’ house without any

reasonable reason.

The respondent in support of her application examined

herself and her father Babulal. The applicant examined himself

and his father Gangaram Chakradhar in support of his defence.

The trial court by order dated 1/7/2015 allowed the

application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/-, by way of

maintenance to the respondent, from the date of the application.

4 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is the respondent

who herself is residing separately without any reasonable reason

and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Even

otherwise, in absence of any specific finding with regard to the

income of the applicant the trial court has granted a maintenance

at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is excessive. This Court

by interim order dated 7/8/2015 had directed the applicant to pay

Rs.3,000/- per month during the pendency of this application and

the applicant has regularly paid the said amount. It is further

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since there is no

default on the part of the applicant, therefore, the direction given

by the trial court to pay the maintenance amount from the date of

the application is erroneous.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent

that the respondent was maltreated, harassed and treated with

cruelty by the applicant and his family members and, therefore,

the trial court did not commit any mistake in coming to the

conclusion that she is residing separately because of reasonable

reason. The applicant is a financially strong person and, therefore,

the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is proper.

The applicant in his evidence has accepted that on the

complaint of the respondent a proceeding under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act is pending. Although a
5 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

suggestion was given to the father of the respondent that the

applicant and his family members have been acquitted in a

criminal case registered for offence under Section 498-A of IPC,

but it was further replied by her father-Babulal (PW-2) that the

State appeal is pending. The applicant in his evidence has

admitted that he had never made any complaint with regard to the

misbehaviour by the respondent nor any application under Section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ever filed by him. Thus, it is clear

that it is the applicant who was not ready and willing to keep the

respondent with him, otherwise he would have certainly taken

certain steps under the law to bring her back. The trial court has

also given a finding that the respondent is entitled for

maintenance, as she is not residing separately without any

reasonable reason. No perversity in the said order has been

pointed out by the counsel for the applicant. It is the well

established principle of law that while exercising the revisional

jurisdiction, the findings of facts can be reversed only when the

same are perverse and contrary to the record. Thus, it is held that

the respondent is entitled for maintenance amount.

So far as the question of quantum of maintenance is

concerned, from the record it is clear that the respondent had

alleged that the applicant is having half bigha of land and a house

containing 15 rooms and 2 rooms have already been let out by the

applicant and he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month by way of rent
6 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

and he is also earning profit from his shop to the tune of

Rs.40,000/- per month. However, no document has been filed to

show that the applicant is having any agricultural land or having a

house of 15 rooms. However, it is the well established principle of

law that where the husband is an able-bodied person, then he

cannot refuse to maintain his wife on the ground that he is not

having sufficient income. As the respondent has failed to point out

the exact financial status of the applicant, therefore, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of

Rs.5,000/- awarded by the trial court is on a higher side. This

Court by order dated 7/8/2015 had directed the applicant to pay

maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month during

the pendency of this revision. However, considering the price

index, inflation, price of the articles of daily need, this Court is of

the view that the amount of Rs.3,000/- is on a lower side.

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall pay Rs.4,000/-

per month by way of maintenance to the respondent.

So far as the question that from which date the maintenance

amount of Rs.4,000/- would be payable is concerned, I have gone

through the order-sheets of the trial court. From the order-sheets,

it does not appear that there was any delay on the part of the

applicant. On some occasions the respondent got the matter

adjourned for examining her witnesses and on some occasions

the matter was adjourned to explore the possibility of compromise.

7 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

On three occasions the matter was adjourned at the request of the

applicant on the ground that his father is seriously ill. Even during

the pendency of the case before the trial court the applicant was

making payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-

per month. Considering the order-sheets of the trial court, this

Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the applicant was in

any manner solely responsible for the delay in disposal of the

application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the

application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 1/6/2013 and

it was finally decided by order dated 1/7/2015, i.e. about 2 years,

and during this period also the respondent was getting the interim

maintenance.

Accordingly, it is directed that the maintenance amount of

Rs.4,000/- shall be payable to the respondent from 1/7/2015, i.e.

the date on which the application filed under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. was finally decided by the trial court.

With aforesaid modifications, the order dated 1/7/2015

passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashoknagar in

M.Cr.C. No.182/2015 is hereby affirmed.

The application succeeds and is allowed to the extent

mentioned above.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
11/01/2018
Arun*

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2018.01.16 16:56:52 +05’30’
8 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR,
BENCH AT GWALIOR

Gwalior : Dated 11/1/2018
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for appellant.

Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for respondent.
Arguments heard.

Order dictated, signed and dated on separate sheets.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*

Leave a Comment

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