Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Dixit vs Smt. Kiran Dixit on 17 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1255 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BALRAM DIXIT S/O SHRI RAMPRAKASH DIXIT, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GANJ MOHALLA NEAR PANI KI
TANKI ATER DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
…..PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ATUL GUPTA- ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
AND
1. SMT. KIRAN DIXIT D/O SHRI RAMSIYA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O GANJ MOHALLA NEAR PANI KI TANKI ATER
DISTRICT BHIND, AT PRESENT MIDTOWN GALAXY
NEAR SABZI MANDI FLAT NO G -05 SECOND FLOOR
PINTO PARK MURAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUYASH (MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.
KIRAN DIXIT ) S/O SHRI BALRAM DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 6
YEARS, GANJ MOHALLA NEAR PANI KI TANKI ATER
BHIND, AT PRESENT MIDTOWN GALAXY NEAR SABZI
MANDI FLAT NO G -05 SECOND FLOOR PINTO PARK
MURAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR GUPTA- ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS)
————————————————————————————–
Reserved on : 10.01.2024
Pronounced on : 17.01.2024
—————————————————————————————-
This revision having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
pronounced the following:
ORDER
2
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrPC is filed assailing the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Case No.301
of 2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior whereby the
petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month
to Respondent No.1 Kiran Dixit and Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent
No.2 Suyash Dixit from the date of order.
The expositions of the facts giving rise to this petition are as
under:-
(1) Petitioner Balram Dixit got married to respondent No.1 Kiran on
16.02.2019. Petitioner Balram and respondent Kiran blessed with a son
Suyash aged around 6 years who is residing with his mother after
matrimonial discord between them. Petitioner Balram and respondent
Kiran are living separately.
(2) Kiran and Suyash had filed an application under Section 125 of
CrPC against petitioner Balram Dixit. Respondent Kiran has submitted
application for grant of interim maintenance.
(3) Learned Additional Judge to the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gwalior after hearing both the parties, allowed the application for grant
of interim maintenance and directed petitioner Balram Dixit to pay
interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to Kiran Dixit and
3
Rs.1,000/- per month to Suyash till disposal of the case.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of grant of interim maintenance
vide order dated 08.02.2023, this revision petition is filed assailing the
impugned order on the following grounds:-
(1) Learned Trial Court has committed error in granting interim
maintenance without proper appreciation of the material on record.
(2) Respondent Kiran Dixit has compelled the petitioner to leave his
house and captured entire house. She has started taking rent from the
tenants. She is earning Rs.15,000/- from rent received from the tenants.
(3) Respondent has compelled her husband to live separately. She is
enjoying the rent of house.
(4) She had filed a petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 which was rejected by the Family Court vide order dated
19.02.2020. Review against this application was rejected vide order dated
12.01.2022. Concealing these facts, the application for interim
maintenance was filed.
(5) Learned Family Court without considering these aspects of the
matter passed the impugned order which deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no
4
source of income, he has resigned from the job of Guest Lecturer due to
his physical incapacity. Learned Principal Judge failed to consider that
applicant Kiran Dixit has sufficient source of earning from rent,
therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there
is no evidence on record that the respondents have regular source of
earning from rent. The petitioner has sufficient source of earning from his
job and properties, therefore, the Family Court has committed no error in
granting interim maintenance.
Heard both the parties and perused the record.
The object of the provision contained in Section 125 of CrPC is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution. The Court needs to find out
requirement of the wife to maintain standard of living which is neither
luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the
family. The needs of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly
determined if her separate income, if any, is taken into account together
with the earning of husband and his responsibilities. It is aimed at
ameliorating the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman, who
had left her matrimonial home so that some suitable arrangement can be
made to enable her to sustain herself. The purpose of interim maintenance
5
is to provide help to the spouse to sail through the process of litigation
and to ensure atleast subsistence living.
The learned Judge of the Family Court after hearing both the
parties concluded as under :-
mHk;i{k us ,d nwljs ij tks vkjksiizR;kjksi yxk;s gSa] mudk fujkdj.k
mHk;i{kksa dh lk{; ds mijkar gh fd;k tkuk laHko gksxk] fdUrq ;g rF; fookfnr
ugha gS fd vkosfndk] vukosnd dh fookfgrk iRuh ugha gSA vkosfndk fdu dkj.kksa
ls ls vukosnd ls i`Fkd jg jgh gS ;g mlus Li”V :i ls vius vkosnu esa crk;k
gS fQj Hkh mDr rF; lk{; mijkar xq.knks”k ij fujkd`r gksxkA ysfdu ;fn iRuh
lkFk jgrh rks mlds Hkj.kiks”k.k dk nkf;Ro ifr ij Fkk rks i`Fkd jgus ls ifr
ml nkf;Ro ls oafpr ugha gks tkrk gSA Lkk{; ds mijkar ;fn vkosfndk mfpr
dkj.kksa ls vyx jguk ikbZ xbZ rks Hkj.kiks”k.k dh ik gksxh vU;Fkk ughaA ,slh
n’kk esa vkt dh fLFkfr esa okndkyhu Hkj.kiks”k.k jkf’k fu/kkZfjr djuk gSA xq.knks”kksa
ij tSlh lk{; izLrqr gksxh oSlk vo/kkj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vr% mijksDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s vkosfndk dk vkosnu
vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vukosnd dks vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og
vkosfndk dks vkosnu fnukad ls 5000@ ¼ikap gtkj½ :i;s izfrekg ,oa iq lq;’k
dks 1000@,d gtkj :i;s izfrekg vUrfje Hkj.kiks”k.k jkf’k bl izdj.k ds
vafre fujkdj.k rd vnk djsA ;fn vkosfndk vU; fdlh izdj.k esa Hkj.kiks”k.k
dh jkf’k izkIr dj jgh gS rks mDr jkf’k bl izdj.k esa fnykbZ xbZ jkf’k esa
lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA
6The aforementioned conclusion appears to be superficial and
cursory merely based on assumption. The material on record relating to
source of income and the standard of living of the parties has not been
duly discussed.
The Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC
324 considering the issues relating to grant of interim-maintenance,
observed that the maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings of the
parties and some amount of guess work. Both the parties submit scanty
material and do not disclose correct details. Keeping that in view, the
Supreme Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of
maintenance. These guidelines were laid down in exercise of power
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of Constitution of India
prescribing a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
Liabilities to be filed in every proceeding relating to maintenance. The
aforementioned directions are extracted as under:-
“72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure
of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court
considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under
Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at
Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed
by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings
before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the
case may be, throughout the country;
7
72.2. (b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to
file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of
Assets;
72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of
Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant
more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of
Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the
reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this
purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence
of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in
delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file the affidavit within the
prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for
maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the
pleadings on record;
72.4. (d) The above format may be modified by the court concerned, if the
exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion
of the court concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard.
72.5. (e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of
Disclosure, any further information is required, the court concerned may pass
appropriate orders in respect thereof.
72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the
Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the court
to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the
opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may
invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act,
1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not
within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets
and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party
concerned.
72.7. (g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial
status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if
some new information comes to light, the party may submit an
amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at
the time of final determination.
72.8. (h) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies
filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and
misrepresentations are made, the court may consider initiation of proceeding
under Section 340 CrPC, and for contempt of court.
The Supreme Court also prescribed standard formats of Affidavit
8of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities for non-agrarian deponents and the
affidavit for agrarian deponents.
The Supreme Court in case of Aditi alias Mithi versus Jitesh
Sharma 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 expressing anguish over non-
compliance/improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of
Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for
compliance thereof.
The copy of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
submitted by Balram Dixit and Kiran Dixit show that most of the entries
are filled cursorily without providing requisite particulars. Consequently,
learned Principal Judge could not consider availability of source of
income with the parties and their standard of living before the
matrimonial discord. Non-compliance with the guidelines in its true spirit
and substance is not acceptable.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is set
aside with the direction that both the parties shall submit fresh Affidavits
of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities with complete particulars in
compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court laid down in case of
Rajnesh (supra). Learned Additional Judge to the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Gwalior shall ensure strict compliance with the guidelines. If any
9of the affidavit is lacking in requisite particulars, learned Judge shall
demand relevant particulars from concerned party. This exercise shall be
completed within 15 days. If any of the parties fails to comply with the
directions, appropriate action with regard to non-compliance may be
taken against such party. Learned Principal Judge on consideration of the
affidavits and material on record, pass an order afresh on application for
interim-maintenance.
Accordingly, the revision-petition is disposed of with
aforementioned directions.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
vijay
Digitally signed by VIJAYVIJAY
TRIPATHI
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ouHIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCHTRIP
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20663cb09dd950bfc3ea
7ed4f02d97ddae5364f1d4b042
dbc59921b76e812d2d6b,
postalCode474001,
stMadhya Pradesh,
ATHI
serialNumber58392D8C4E7C9
693BFEEB5B46B3CA006F1127E
89008952BBEC528CE4D82551B
D, cnVIJAY TRIPATHI
Date: 2024.01.17 18:44:52
+05’30’