SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Balram Dixit vs Smt. Kiran Dixit on 17 January, 2024

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
6

The 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
8

of 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
9

of 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 VIJAY

VIJAY
TRIPATHI
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ouHIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH

TRIP
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’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation