1
F.A. No.12/2017

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR

DB : JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU

JUSTICE S.A. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ

F.A. No. 12 of 2017
Smt. Sudha Chauhan
Vs.
Krishna Pal Singh

Whether reportable :- Yes /No
—————————————————————–

For Appellant : Shri Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate

—————————————————————–
ORDER

(Delivered on this Day 19th of April, 2018)

Per Justice S.A. DHARMADHIKARI

Heard on the question of admission.

This instant appeal is filed under Section 19 of

the Family Courts Act, 1984 aggrieved by the order dated

08/11/2016 passed in Case No.02/2015 by the Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior by which an

application under Section 18, 19 25 of Hindu Adoption
2
F.A. No.12/2017

Maintenance Act, 1956 filed by the present appellant has

been partly allowed by granting/enhancing the

maintenance to Rs.3,000/- from Rs. 1,600/-.

(2) The appellant filed an application under Section

18, 19 25 of the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act,

1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1956) seeking

maintenance. The marriage between the appellant and

respondent was solemnized on 05/06/1986 and one son

namely Gaurav was born out of the wedlock. The

appellant was subjected to continuous harassment for

having not met demand of dowry and was also threatened

that the respondent would enter into a second wedlock.

The appellant got pregnant but suffered abortion. As the

situation gradually worsened and being deserted and ill

treated and suffering from fear Psychosis, it became

unbearable for the appellant to stay at the matrimonial

home, therefore, she came back to the parental home.

The appellant, therefore, sought grant of maintenance at

the rate of Rs.20,000/-Per Month. Her husband is working

on the post of Junior Engineer in the Indian Railways and

earning Rs.50,000/- Per Month approximately apart from

other perks. The said application was dismissed by the
3
F.A. No.12/2017

trial Court vide order dated 27/03/2004. Being aggrieved

by the order dated 27/03/2004, Criminal Revision was

filed which was allowed on 26/08/2004. The

respondent/husband filed a revision before the High Court

bearing Criminal Revision No.578/2004, the same was

decided on 09/04/2008. The maintenance was reduced

from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.1,600/- and set aside the order in

respect of son Gaurav as he had became major.

(3) Being aggrieved by the order decreasing the

granting of maintenance, the wife i.e. appellant filed the

aforesaid application before the trial Court seeking

enhancement to Rs.20,000/- on the ground that her

parents have died and even her brother has also died from

cancer. The appellant is not able to maintain herself with

mere Rs.16,00/- and deserves reasonable amount.

(4) The respondent appeared before the trial Court

and filed reply stating therein that father of the appellant

was landlord (Jamidar) and he had agricultural land. The

son of the appellant has been inducted in the Indian Navy.

The appellant is the owner of 19 bighas land of her share

from which she is getting Rs.5,00,000/- as agricultural

income. The divorce has been granted on 23/10/2008 and
4
F.A. No.12/2017

no appeal has been preferred against the same, therefore,

the same has attained finality. In these circumstances, the

respondent had prayed for dismissal of the application.

(5) The trial Court on the basis of pleadings, framed

three issues and recorded evidence. After hearing the

parties the trial court vide order dated 08/11/2016 partly

allowed the application filed by the appellant and

granted/enhanced the maintenance to the tune of

Rs.3,000/- Per Month only. Being aggrieved by meager

amount of Rs.3,000/- the instant appeal has been filed

seeking enhancement on the grounds inter-alia that the

trial Court erred in granting lesser amount inasmuch as it

ought to have enhanced the amount reasonably looking to

the rise in price index. The trial Court in para 13 came to

the conclusion that the respondent is earning Rs. 50,000/-

Per Month and therefore, at least 1/3 of Rs.50,000/-

ought to have been granted to the appellant. At the same

time, the trial Court came to the conclusion that

respondent has failed to prove that the appellant owns a

house that itself shows that she does not have sufficient

means to maintain herself and Rs.3,000/- is too meager

an amount. Even agricultural income has not been proved
5
F.A. No.12/2017

and it is also not proved that son Gaurav is maintaining

the appellant. Under these circumstances, the appellant

prays for enhancing the maintenance of amount of

Rs.3,000/- to 20,000/- Per Month.

(6) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(7) The obligation of the husband is on higher

pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and

children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial

home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of

many a comfort. At this stage, the only comfort that the

law can impose is that the husband is bound to give

monetary comfort. It is the obligation of the husband to

maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he

is unable to maintain due to financial constraints as long

as he is capable of earning. The inherent and fundamental

principle behind the grant of maintenance is for

amelioration of the financial status of affair as well as

mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she

is compelled to leave matrimonial home. As per law, wife

is entitled to lead a life in similar manner as she would

have lived in the house of her husband, therefore, the

status and strata of the husband comes into play and that
6
F.A. No.12/2017

is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes

prominent.

(8) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that

respondent is working as Junior Engineer in Indian

Railways and earning Rs.50,000/- Per Month. He has also

failed to prove that his son is supporting the appellant.

The agricultural income of the appellant has also not been

proved. Admittedly, the divorce took place on 23/10/2008

and parents and brother have also died. There is no one

to support the appellant. The amount of maintenance

enhanced by the trial Court from Rs.1,600/- to Rs.3,000/-

is absolutely on the lower side looking to the status, strata

and income of the respondent. In today’s world, it is

extremely difficult to concede that a woman of her status

would be in a position to maintain within Rs.3,000/- Per

Month. The trial Court has granted the maintenance on

lower side. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts

and circumstances of the case and income of the

respondent, this appeal is allowed and the amount

awarded is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-

towards maintenance of the appellant. The appellant is

directed to furnish the details of the bank account to the
7
F.A. No.12/2017

respondent within 15 days enabling the respondent to

deposit the amount of maintenance in the said bank

account regularly. The appellant shall be entitled to the

enhanced maintenance of Rs.5,000/- w.e.f. April 2018.

With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.

(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. Dharmadhikari)
JUDGE JUDGE

rahul

Digitally signed by RAHUL
SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2018.04.19 18:04:12
+05’30’