SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mukesh Parashar vs Smt. Rani Parashar on 20 March, 2018

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.284/2018
(Mukesh Parashar Vs. Smt. Rani Parashar)

1

Gwalior, Dated : 20.03.2018
Shri U.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This criminal revision has been filed under Section
397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.12.2017 passed
by the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gwalior in Case No.2/2013. Vide impugned order, learned
Additional Family Court Judge has awarded maintenance @
Rs.2,500/- for the wife i.e. respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/-

each for two children born out of the wedlock between the
petitioner and the respondent No.1. Petitioner is challenging
the award of maintenance on the ground that he is not having
sufficient means to satisfy the order of the Court.

It is submitted that petitioner is practicing as a lawyer. A
certificate has been produced from the President of Bar
Association, Dabra, District Gwalior, dated 12.02.2018 which
makes a mention that registration number of the petitioner
Mukesh Parashar, S/o J.P. Parashar, Resident of Laxmi
Colony, Dabra is M.P./2677/2002 dated 31.10.2002.
Thereafter, the President of the Association has certified that
due to family circumstances, Mukesh parashar had got
himself registered as member of Bar Association, Dabra, in
the year 2010 and was practicing in the office of Shri Suresh
Chandra Gautam as a junior. After three months of such
practice, he started working in the office of Shri Rajnish
Sharma, Advocate, at Gwalior. At present he is working in the
office of Shri Puroshottam Rai, Advocate. It is further
mentioned that in the year 2008, he had worked for about 3-4
months in the office of Puroshottam Rai, Advocate, Gwalior,
but because of family circumstances, he could not practice
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.284/2018
(Mukesh Parashar Vs. Smt. Rani Parashar)

2

regularly but since 2010, he is working as a junior counsel at
Gwalior. This certificate has been issued by the President of
the Bar Association is full of contradictions. On the one hand,
it is mentioned that though the registration of the counsel Shri
Mukesh Parashar with the said Bar Council is dated
31.10.2002 but due to family circumstances, he got himself
registered with Advocate Association, Dabra, in the year 2010.
On the other hand, he furnishes information about his practice
in the year 2008 with Shri Purushottam Rai. He also makes a
mention that he was earlier practicing with Shri Rajnish
Sharma at Gwalior. Thereafter, it is mentioned that Mukesh
Parashar is working with Purushottam Rai, Advocate, as a
junior counsel. The tense is present continuous but in the
second sentence, he has mentioned that he was working in
the year 2008 and worked for 3-4 months then he also
certifies that since 2010, Shri Mukesh Parashar is working as
junior at Gwalior. What is the source of such information
itself it has not been mentioned as well as on the basis of
which document such certificates have been prepared by the
President of Bar Association, Dabra has not been mentioned.
Therefore, this certificate except for pointing out that Mukesh
Parashar is a registered lawyer since 31.10.2002, it reflects
that Mukesh Parashar has put in over fifteen years of practice
as a lawyer. Other contents of the certificate are not
supported by any cogent evidence and thus cannot be relied
on.

Petitioner’s contention is that in a case which was
decided by the same Family Court under the provisions of
Guardians and Wards Act and which was registered as Case
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.284/2018
(Mukesh Parashar Vs. Smt. Rani Parashar)

3

No.17/13, vide order dated 31.07.2017 the Court refused to
extend custody of minor children Aarzoo, aged nine years and
Tanuj, aged eight years, on the ground that insufficient
financial means, social and mental status did not support the
case of the applicant. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,500/- has
been awarded as maintenance for the wife and Rs.1500/-
each of the children. It is submitted that there is no regular
source of income for the petitioner and he is getting a sum of
Rs.2000/- per month. On the basis of such submission, the
impugned order has been quashed and it is prayed that such
order be set-aside.

As far as plea of petitioner’s income to be of Rs.2,000/-
is concerned, that appears to be incorrect on the face of
record, inasmuch petitioner has not filed any copy of his own
Return or the Return of his senior to show as to how much
remuneration has been shown to be drawn by the petitioner.

The ground for setting aside the maintenance is that a
false complaint in regard to demand of dowry was made. It is
a case of wilfull desertion and cruelty. Further application
under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been
filed after three years of divorce and also on the ground that
petitioner is not having sufficient income, he has prayed for
setting aside of the maintenance as has been awarded in
favour of the respondent.

Petitioner has not produced any document before the
Family Court or before this Court to show as to what is his
income and when he had married the respondent Rani and
has two children, then they were conceived on the basis of
which financial support? In absence of any such evidence
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.284/2018
(Mukesh Parashar Vs. Smt. Rani Parashar)

4

being led by the petitioner merely because in a case under the
Guardians and Wards Act, custody of minor children has been
denied, it is not sufficient ground to set aside the order of
maintenance looking to the fact that wife and children are
belonging to a particular class being wife and children of a
lawyer who has a certain status and dignity in the society.
Petitioner has also not placed on record details of his personal
expenses and how they are met.

Thus, looking to the fact that education is an expensive
affair and cost of foodgrains is also showing inflationary trend
from time to time, it cannot be said that the maintenance
awarded by the Family Court in favour of the children and wife
are excessive @ Rs.1,500/- each for the children and
Rs.2,500/- for the wife.

Petitioner has since not come with clean hand and has
not been examined any person to show his actual income and
also not produced any book of accounts from his so called
senior to show how much remuneration he is getting from his
senior and what is his other source of income, it cannot be
said that the petitioner has approached this Court with clean
hands. There is no illegality or imperfection in the impugned
order warranting interference by this Court in the revisional
jurisdiction. The revision fails and is dismissed.

(Vivek Agarwal)
Judge

mani
Digitally signed by SUBASRI
MANI
Date: 2018.03.24 17:55:38

-07’00’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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