THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-1941-2017
(AMBIKA PRASAD SONI Vs SMT. MALTI SONI)

2
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-02-2018
Ms. Tulika Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.

This revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., has been directed
against order dated 10/03/2016, passed by the Principal Judge, Family

sh
Court, Chhatarpur in MJC No.05/14, wherein the learned Family

e
Court has allowed the application of respondent/wife and enhanced the

ad
maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- p.m. The petitioner

Pr
preferred Cr.R. No.0913/16, wherein it is remanded the case to the
Family Court with direction that the trial Court would consider the
a
hy

citation Rohtash Singh Vs. Ramendri others reported as (2000) 3
SCC 180 and Dr. G. Sivaraman Vs. P. Muthukumari reported as
ad

2014 (1) MWN (Cr.) 93. Subsequently, the order impugned dated
M

12/04/2017, wherein it is directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.8,000/-.
But, it was directed to adjust the amount of maintenance earlier
of

granted till the date of decree of divorce i.e. 21/11/2013.

rt

On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that order dated
ou

12/04/2017 is absolutely arbitrary and erroneous. The learned trial
Court failed to consider the order and documentary evidence provided
C

by the petitioner/husband. It is also contended that the respondent/wife
h

is also earning and the same was not considered while passing the
ig

order. The trial Court ought to have considered the changed
H

circumstances and the earning capacity of the respondent/wife. Failure
to give due regard to the enhanced capacity of the wife rendered the
impugned order illegal. The enhancement of maintenance is almost
doubling the amount is contrary to evidence on record.

It is contended that the petitioner is a causal compere in the
Radio Station at Akashvani, Chhatarpur. Referring to paragraph 20 of
the order impugned, it is claimed that the respondent/wife is regularly
earning, therefore, she is not entitled for enhancement.

In this regard, it would be appropriate to hold that when the
respondent.wife is living separately and is not getting maintenance,
she had to do certain work to survive. The respondent/wife if works as
a causal compere, it does not mean that she is earning a lot, otherwise
also causal compere is not a regular employment. They get
remuneration for the day they are called for the work. Otherwise, also
the remuneration to causal compere is not so much that it is sufficient
for maintenance.

It would be appropriate to mention here that the inherent and
fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is for amelioration
of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish

sh
that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial

e
home. The statute commands that there has to be some acceptable

ad
arrangements, so that she can sustain herself. As per law, she is

Pr
entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in
the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the
a
husband comes into play. It is a legal obligation of the husband to pay
hy

maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., so that
ad

the wife can live with dignity as she would have lived in her
M

matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a
beggar.

of

The earning of the petitioner/husband has also been considered
by the learned trial Court and it is contended that the
rt

husband/petitioner is earning RS.58,842/- p.m. He was the Branch
ou

Manager of Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank, Rajnagar. It is also stated
C

that he has 5.252 hectares of irrigated agricultural land and a pakka
h

house over 1600 sq.ft. at Bajrang Nagar, Chhatarpur. He is also
ig

maintaining a Maruti Car. The parents of the respondent/wife are also
H

no more. She has no definite income nor shelter, therefore, she
demanded enhancement from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.29,000/- p.m. However,
the learned trial Court considering the requirements of the
respondent/wife and the inflammation, enhanced the maintenance
from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,00/- p.m. Thus, it cannot be said to be in the
higher side.

As regarding the case of Rohtash Singh Vs. Ramendri others
reported as (2000) 3 SCC 180, it would be appropriate to mention
here that the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the maintenance
has observed the suggestions of the counsel that after the decree of
divorce on the ground of desertion by the respondent, she would not
be entitled for maintenance for any period prior to passing of the
decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court
observed to that extend that the learned trial Court appears to be
correct but for that short period, the Court inclined to interfere, the
Special Leave Petition was dismissed as without merits.

In the case of Dr. G. Sivaraman Vs. P. Muthukumari reported
as 2014 (1) MWN (Cr.) 93, the learned Madras High Court has made
it clear that, the wife deserted the husband and living separately as per

sh
the decree of divorce, is not entitled to claim maintenance for the

e
period prior to the date of decree of divorce. In that case, the wife was

ad
gainfully employed for 2 years, therefore, disentitled to claim
maintenance from the date of employment.

Pr
In the present case, the situation is completely different, the
a
respondent/wife is also suffering from Cancer and has filed documents
hy

to show that she was to be operated upon, this is the circumstances
ad

which has to be kept in mind while determining the maintenance.

M

The order of the Family Court do not suffer from any manifest
perversity. Nothing perceptible which would show that the order has
of

errors. The learned Family Court has appreciated the evidence on
record, therefore, interference is not called for. The question of shelter
rt

in the parental house after the death of her parents and other real
ou

expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband is retired,
C

there is no justification to reduce the maintenance. It is not a huge
h

fortune that has been showered on the respondent/wife, therefore, the
ig

maintenance award does not deserve to be reduced. The order of the
H

Family Court is affirmed.

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
JUDGE

Digitally signed by RASHMI
RONALD VICTOR
Date: 2018.02.14 22:31:16 -08’00’

RS