1 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Revision No.609/2015
………Applicant: Hemant Kumar Chakradhar
Versus
………Respondent: Vinita Chakradhar
—————————————————————————————-
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for respondent.
—————————————————————————————-
Date of hearing : 11/01/2018
Date of Order : 11/01/2018
Whether approved for reporting :
Law laid down:
Significant paragraphs:
ORDER
(11/01/2018)
Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia,
This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C.
has been filed against the judgment dated 1/7/2015 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashoknagar in M.Cr.C.
No.182/2015, by which the application filed by the respondent
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicant
has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month by way of
maintenance from the date of application.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present
application in short are that the respondent filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the allegations that she got
2 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
married to the applicant on 5/5/2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals.
Immediately after the marriage, the applicant and his family
members started passing taunts and harassing her mentally on
the allegation that less dowry has been given and the applicant
would have got more dowry in case had he been married to
somebody else. The applicant and his family members were
demanding either four wheeler or Rs.5,00,000/-. The father of the
respondent is a poor person and is not in a position to fulfill their
demand. The applicant and his family members used to say that in
other marriages the grooms have got a car in dowry and even the
sons of their relatives have got a car in dowry. Since her father
was a poor person, therefore, she was somehow managing the
physical and mental harassment at the hands of the applicant and
his family members under the impression and belief that one day
the situation would improve, but the applicant and his family
members used to beat her and they were also not providing food
to her and she was being treated as a maid/servant. The applicant
was also not treating the respondent as his wife and was insisting
that only after she brings a car, then he would treat her like his
wife. About six months prior to filing of the application the
respondent was turned out of her matrimonial house with a
specific direction that unless and until she brings a car, she should
treat that the relations have already come to an end. The
respondent and her father tried to pursue the applicant and his
3 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
family members on number of occasions, but they did not give up
their demand. In the month of May, 2012 she was given a warning
that either she should bring a car otherwise the applicant would
remarry. Accordingly, a complaint was made to the police officers.
Thus, it was alleged that the applicant is not providing the
maintenance to the respondent and she is unable to maintain
herself and, therefore, a prayer was made for grant of
maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.
The application was opposed by the applicant. The
allegations of demand of dowry were denied. The allegation of
turning her out of matrimonial house was also denied. The
allegation that the applicant was not treating the respondent as his
wife was also denied. In additional statement, it was alleged that
in fact it is the respondent whose behaviour with the applicant and
his family members was not cordial and she always abuses them
and always passes taunts against the applicant and his family
members. She is residing in her parents’ house without any
reasonable reason.
The respondent in support of her application examined
herself and her father Babulal. The applicant examined himself
and his father Gangaram Chakradhar in support of his defence.
The trial court by order dated 1/7/2015 allowed the
application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/-, by way of
maintenance to the respondent, from the date of the application.
4 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is
submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is the respondent
who herself is residing separately without any reasonable reason
and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Even
otherwise, in absence of any specific finding with regard to the
income of the applicant the trial court has granted a maintenance
at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is excessive. This Court
by interim order dated 7/8/2015 had directed the applicant to pay
Rs.3,000/- per month during the pendency of this application and
the applicant has regularly paid the said amount. It is further
submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since there is no
default on the part of the applicant, therefore, the direction given
by the trial court to pay the maintenance amount from the date of
the application is erroneous.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent
that the respondent was maltreated, harassed and treated with
cruelty by the applicant and his family members and, therefore,
the trial court did not commit any mistake in coming to the
conclusion that she is residing separately because of reasonable
reason. The applicant is a financially strong person and, therefore,
the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is proper.
The applicant in his evidence has accepted that on the
complaint of the respondent a proceeding under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act is pending. Although a
5 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
suggestion was given to the father of the respondent that the
applicant and his family members have been acquitted in a
criminal case registered for offence under Section 498-A of IPC,
but it was further replied by her father-Babulal (PW-2) that the
State appeal is pending. The applicant in his evidence has
admitted that he had never made any complaint with regard to the
misbehaviour by the respondent nor any application under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ever filed by him. Thus, it is clear
that it is the applicant who was not ready and willing to keep the
respondent with him, otherwise he would have certainly taken
certain steps under the law to bring her back. The trial court has
also given a finding that the respondent is entitled for
maintenance, as she is not residing separately without any
reasonable reason. No perversity in the said order has been
pointed out by the counsel for the applicant. It is the well
established principle of law that while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction, the findings of facts can be reversed only when the
same are perverse and contrary to the record. Thus, it is held that
the respondent is entitled for maintenance amount.
So far as the question of quantum of maintenance is
concerned, from the record it is clear that the respondent had
alleged that the applicant is having half bigha of land and a house
containing 15 rooms and 2 rooms have already been let out by the
applicant and he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month by way of rent
6 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
and he is also earning profit from his shop to the tune of
Rs.40,000/- per month. However, no document has been filed to
show that the applicant is having any agricultural land or having a
house of 15 rooms. However, it is the well established principle of
law that where the husband is an able-bodied person, then he
cannot refuse to maintain his wife on the ground that he is not
having sufficient income. As the respondent has failed to point out
the exact financial status of the applicant, therefore, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of
Rs.5,000/- awarded by the trial court is on a higher side. This
Court by order dated 7/8/2015 had directed the applicant to pay
maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month during
the pendency of this revision. However, considering the price
index, inflation, price of the articles of daily need, this Court is of
the view that the amount of Rs.3,000/- is on a lower side.
Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall pay Rs.4,000/-
per month by way of maintenance to the respondent.
So far as the question that from which date the maintenance
amount of Rs.4,000/- would be payable is concerned, I have gone
through the order-sheets of the trial court. From the order-sheets,
it does not appear that there was any delay on the part of the
applicant. On some occasions the respondent got the matter
adjourned for examining her witnesses and on some occasions
the matter was adjourned to explore the possibility of compromise.
7 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
On three occasions the matter was adjourned at the request of the
applicant on the ground that his father is seriously ill. Even during
the pendency of the case before the trial court the applicant was
making payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-
per month. Considering the order-sheets of the trial court, this
Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the applicant was in
any manner solely responsible for the delay in disposal of the
application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 1/6/2013 and
it was finally decided by order dated 1/7/2015, i.e. about 2 years,
and during this period also the respondent was getting the interim
maintenance.
Accordingly, it is directed that the maintenance amount of
Rs.4,000/- shall be payable to the respondent from 1/7/2015, i.e.
the date on which the application filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. was finally decided by the trial court.
With aforesaid modifications, the order dated 1/7/2015
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashoknagar in
M.Cr.C. No.182/2015 is hereby affirmed.
The application succeeds and is allowed to the extent
mentioned above.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
11/01/2018
Arun*
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2018.01.16 16:56:52 +05’30’
8 Criminal Revision No.609/2015
[Hemant Kumar Chakradhar Vs. Vinita Chakradhar]
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gwalior : Dated 11/1/2018
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for respondent.
Arguments heard.
Order dictated, signed and dated on separate sheets.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*