SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Gunjan vs Amit on 23 January, 2020

Cr.R. No.343/2017 1

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.343/2017
(Smt. Gunjan vs Amit Ors.)

Indore, Dated:23/01/2020

Ms. V. Sumanlata Tamrakar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
ORDER

The applicant is calling in question the order dated
10/02/2017 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, District
Rajgarh (Biaora), in Cri. Appeal No.392/2016, whereby the
appellate Court partly allowed the appeal against the order dated
19/07/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kilchipur,
District Rajgarh (Biaora) wherein the application filed by the
applicant under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for
short ‘The Act,2005’) was rejected. The appellate Court directed
the non-applicant No.1 to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as
maintenance to the applicant.

02. It is admitted fact that the applicant is the legally
wedded wife of the non-applicant No.1 and presently she is
residing separately from the non-applicants. Non-applicants No.2
3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant.

03. Facts which led to filing of the present revision
application are that after some time of the marriage, non-applicants
started torturing the applicant physically and mentally due to petty
issues, they did not provide her food and had beaten her. Non-
applicant No.1 told her that she is ugly and mentally ill, therefore,
he will not keep her and he performed second marriage. In these
circumstances, the applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial

Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 29/01/2020 17:47:31
Cr.R. No.343/2017 2

house and she started living in her parental house. Thus applicant
filed an application under Section 12 of ‘The Act,2005’ for
protection and grant of maintenance from the non-applicant No.1.

04. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court
vide order dated 19/07/2016 holding that the applicant was
suffering from mental disorder prior to her marriage but without
disclosing about the aforesaid disease, her parents solemnized her
marriage with non-applicant no.1. After the marriage the non-
applicant no.1 gave her proper care and also made arrangements
for her treatment. The applicant failed to establish that the non-
applicants ill-treated her on the ground that she is suffering from
mental disease and ousted her from the matrimonial house.

05. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Sessions
Court by filing Cr.A. No.392/2016, the same was allowed in part
and the non-applicant no.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month
as maintenance to the applicant.

06. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the Courts below have committed error in not giving relief under
Section 18, 19 and 22 of ‘The Act, 2005’ and such a meager amount
of Rs.3,000/- has been ordered to be paid as maintenance to the
applicant, which is not sufficient for the applicant, therefore,
counsel prayed that the non-applicant no.1 be directed to pay
Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant.

07. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and
perused the impugned order, the record of the trial Court as well as
the appellate Court.

08. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the
applicant is residing separately from the non-applicants and she
does not do any work due to illness. It has also come in the
evidence that the applicant is suffering from some mental disease,

Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 29/01/2020 17:47:31
Cr.R. No.343/2017 3

therefore, non-applicant No.1 decided to take divorce from the
applicant and he filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce before the competent Court. After
receiving the notice of the aforesaid divorce petition, the applicant
has filed the present case under ‘The Act, 2005’ before the trial
Court. Under these circumstances, the appellate Court was of the
view that the applicant is entitled for the relief of grant of
maintenance alone from the non-applicant No.1 and directed the
non-applicant No.1 to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance.

09. The respondent No.1 has already accepted that he is
working as Lab Technician and this is above the post of Peon. But
he denied that he is getting Rs.40,000/- per month as salary.
According to him he is n private job and getting only Rs.6,000/-
per month as salary. There is nothing on record to show that non-
applicant No.1 is getting Rs.40,000/- per month as salary.
Considering the status of both the parties and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the
appellate Court has not committed any error in fixing Rs.3,500/-
per month as maintenance in favour of the applicant and there is no
ground available in interfering in the impugned order.
Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.343/2017 is hereby dismissed
being devoid of merits.

Certified copy as per Rules.

(S. K. AWASTHI)
JUDGE
sumathi

Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 29/01/2020 17:47:31

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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