SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt.Sona @ Kusum Bai vs Ravi @ Fateh Singh on 4 January, 2018

1 CRR No.145/2015

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Revision No.145/2015
………Applicant: Smt. Sona @ Kusum Bai
Versus
…….Respondent : Ravi @ Fateh Singh

—————————————————————–
None for the applicant.
Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the respondent.
—————————————————————–
ORDER

(04/01/2018)
Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of
Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2014
passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha
in MJC No.262/2014 by which the Trial Court has awarded
an amount of Rs.4000/- per month by way of
maintenance. This revision has been filed by the applicant
for enhancement of amount.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present
revision in short are that the applicant filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging that she was married
to the respondent on 19.5.2011 as per Hindu rites and
rituals. After 2-3 months of the marriage, the respondent
and his family members started harassing and treating the
applicant with cruelty on the ground that the father of the
applicant has not given a Bolero four wheeler in the dowry
2 CRR No.145/2015

and, therefore, they were insisting that the applicant
should ask a Bolero jeep from her father. When the
applicant refused to do so, then the respondent and his
family members started harassing the applicant on trivial
issues. The respondent used to say that the applicant is of
a black complexion and she is an illiterate lady and her
father has not given the Bolero Jeep, therefore, he would
remarry. The respondent used to beat the applicant on
this issue. On 24.11.2011, she was turned out of her
matrimonial house and from thereafter she is residing in
her parents home. On 17.12.2011, she filed an application
before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Vidisha but the
respondent did not appear. On 23.3.2012, the applicant
lodged a FIR against the respondent and his family
members for offence punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC and the police has registered the case as Crime
No.52/2012 which is pending. The respondent is
financially strong person having 125 Beeghas of irrigated
land. He has a big house, two tractor and trolleys, one
jeep and four motorcycles and his yearly income is
Rs.20,00,000/- per year, whereas the applicant is not
having any independent source of income. She is unable
to maintain herself, therefore, a prayer was made for
grant of maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month.

3. The respondent filed his reply to the application and
denied the allegation of harassment. He further stated
that he is a small farmer. In fact, the applicant herself had
left the company of the respondent and her behavior
towards the respondent and his family members was
cruel. On various occasions, the respondent had tried to
3 CRR No.145/2015

pursue the applicant to live along with him but the
applicant did not agree for that. The applicant always
insisted that the respondent should live separately from
his family and since he was not in a position to fulfill the
demands of the applicant, therefore, the applicant has left
his company and is residing in her parents home.

4. The Trial Court by order dated 20.11.2014 allowed
the application and directed the respondent to pay
Rs.4,000/- per month by way of maintenance.

5. None appears for the applicant even in the second
round although it was being displayed on the Display
Board that the matter is being taken up for final hearing.

6. The respondent has submitted that the Trial Court
has wrongly assessed the income of the respondent. The
Trial Court has already awarded a very higher
maintenance amount, therefore, the same is not liable to
be enhanced. The respondent is not having any
agricultural land and the father of the respondent is
having only 40-45 Beeghas of land which is also a joint
property and has not been partitioned.

7. Perused the grounds raised in the revision. Heard the
counsel for the respondent and also perused the record.

8. Since the respondent has not challenged the order
dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Court below, therefore,
the question of entitlement of the applicant to receive the
maintenance amount does not require any reconsideration
as the said finding has not been challenged by the
respondent. Accordingly, it is held that the applicant is
entitled for maintenance amount as she is residing
separately because of reasonable reasons.

4 CRR No.145/2015

9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
the applicant has examined his mother Shribai (DW-2). In
cross-examination, Shribai (DW-2) has admitted that the
applicant had given an application before the Parivar
Paramarsh Kendra, Vidisha where her son (respondent)
was called and he was advised to keep the applicant
properly and not to harass her. However, the witness on
her own, further added that even the applicant was
advised to live properly in her matrimonial house. It was
further stated that in fact it is the applicant who does not
wish to stay in her matrimonial house and she wants to
stay in her parents house. Further, this witness has stated
that now they do not want to keep the applicant along
with them. She further admitted that her family is having
more than 100 Beeghas of joint agricultural land.
However, she denied for want of knowledge about the
share of the respondent in the entire land. The respondent
(DW-1) has denied that how much agricultural land is
recorded in his name. He also denied for want of
knowledge that he is having 125 Beeghas of agricultural
land. However, he admitted that his some of the land is
irrigated land and the remaining land is unirrigated. He
further denied that he is having two tractor and trolleys as
well as a jeep. Ram Singh (DW-3) has stated that he is
having only 40 to 45 Beeghas of joint property. The entire
land is an unirrigated land. However, he also could not
point out that how much land is in the name of the
respondent. The respondent has not filed any document to
show that how much land is in their possession. Except by
saying that whatever land the respondent and his family is
5 CRR No.145/2015

having is the joint property, no other details have been
given by the respondent with regard to the names of the
co-sharers. The respondent has expressed his ignorance
about the total agricultural land, which he is having,
whereas Ram Singh (DW-3) has stated that he is having
40-45 Beeghas of agricultural land which is joint in nature,
whereas Shribai (DW-2) has admitted that they are having
more than 100 Beeghas of joint agricultural land. Thus, it
is clear that the respondent has tried to suppress the
details of the agricultural land, which he is having.
However, in the light of the admission made by Shribai
(DW-2) that they are having more than 100 Beeghas of
joint property as well as the contention of the applicant
that the respondent is having about 125 Beeghas of land,
this Court is of the view that the respondent and his family
is having about 125 Beeghas of land. The share of the
respondent cannot be ascertained in absence of any
details given by the respondent himself but it is clear that
the respondent is financially sound.

10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Trial Court
is on a lower side because it is well settled principle of law
that for determination of quantum of maintenance
amount, the status of the parties is also required to be
seen. The applicant/wife is entitled to enjoy the same
status which she would have otherwise enjoyed in her
matrimonial house.

11. Accordingly, considering the total land which the
respondent and his family is having, this Court is of the
view that the averment made by the applicant that the
6 CRR No.145/2015

yearly income of the respondent is Rs.20,00,000/- per
year cannot be disbelieved. Since the respondent is not
the owner of the entire 125 Beeghas of land and he must
be sharing his land along with his father, mother and
siblings, therefore, it can be assumed that the yearly
income of the respondent must be around Rs.5,00,000/-.
As the father and mother Shribai (DW-2) and Ram Singh
(DW-3) themselves have stated that the land is joint in
nature, therefore, it is clear that the respondent has no
other financial liability to discharge because all the family
members of the respondent are self dependent.

12. Considering the yearly income of the respondent, this
Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.4,000/- granted
by the Trial Court is on a lower side. Accordingly, the
application is allowed. The maintenance amount of
Rs.4,000/- is modified and in place of Rs.4,000/- per
month, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- per
month to the applicant by way of maintenance. The
enhanced amount shall be payable from 20.11.2014, i.e.
the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Vidisha.

13. Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha in MJC
No.262/2014 is hereby modified to the extent mentioned
above.

14. With aforesaid modification, the revision is allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
Judge
(04/01/2018)
(alok)

ALOK KUMAR
2018.01.09 10:25:58 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation