Review Petition No.595/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhna
Bhadoriya) and
Review Petition No.596/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhana
Bhadoriya) 1
Gwalior
8.11.2017
Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondent.

This order shall lead to final disposal of
R.P.No.595/2017 and R.P.No.596/2017, which are
analogously heard.

Petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks review
of order dated 8.8.2017 passed in W.P.No.768/2017
which was directed against the order dated 4.1.2017
passed on an application under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1956 in a proceedings under section 13 of
the Act of 1956, whereby the Trial Court has awarded
Rs.5000/- toward maintenance pendente lite. Evidently
the petition was at the instance of wife who was dis-
satisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the
Trial Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
writ petitions were allowed by enhancing the
maintenance from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- after taking
into consideration the fact that the respondent i.e. present
petitioner is a doctor was having definite source of
income and that the respondent-wife has a right to live
with dignity.

Review Petition No.595/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhna
Bhadoriya) and
Review Petition No.596/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhana
Bhadoriya) 2
Review of the said order has been sought on the
ground that this Court has committed an error in
computing the income earned by the present petitioner.
A reliance is placed on the income tax returns of the year
2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. It is alleged that
had the same being taken into its right perspective the
quantum of maintenance amount ought to have been on
the lower side.

Learned counsel appeared for the respondent takes
exception to the income tax return filed by the petitioner
and has also filed an application under section 340 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for taking cognizance
against the present petitioner for filing wrong income tax
returns and seeking review of the order passed in writ
petition on the basis of all these returns. It is urged that
actually returns which were filed by the petitioner are part
of the record of the proceedings pending before the Trial
Court under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, wherein income shown is totally different than what
has been mentioned in the return filed by the petitioner.
On these grounds, it is accordingly urged that the
petitioner be held up for a wrong statement made in the
Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Writ Petition NO.768/2017 as evident was for
enhancement of maintenance pendente lite as the same
Review Petition No.595/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhna
Bhadoriya) and
Review Petition No.596/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhana
Bhadoriya) 3
was disposed of with the following terms:

“Taking into consideration the fact that
respondent could not establish as to the
petitioner having definite source of income,
whereas the petitioner wife is dependent on
her parents and that she resides in urban
area, the pendente lite maintenance and has
a right to live with dignity, amount of
Rs.5,000/- awarded towards maintenance is
on the lower side. Instead, she is entitled for
Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance
from the date of application under Section 24
of the Act, 1956.”

Evident it is that no mathematical calculation in
respect of earning by the petitioner was taken into
consideration; rather the status of the petitioner and that
of his wife was taken into consideration while enhancing
the maintenance from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10000/- per
month.

In view whereof, this Court does not perceive any
error apparent on the face of record as would warrant any
indulgence.

Consequently, review petition fails and is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

As regard to initiation of proceedings against the
Review Petition No.595/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhna
Bhadoriya) and
Review Petition No.596/2017 (Sunil Bhadoriya Vs. Smt. Sadhana
Bhadoriya) 4
petitioner for alleged filing of wrong income tax return,
the respondent is at liberty to take recourse to law
before the forum under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(Sanjay Yadav)
Judge

pawar/-

ASHISH
Digitally signed by ASHISH PAWAR
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH
GWALIOR, ouP. S., postalCode474011,
stMadhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20022bf22fa73f89c6f6d933de1146a290

PAWAR
a49b3c94df18221974589b5a02e0fc6b,
serialNumber45b88e29cf4fecaaa753c8ca874
0ad0da9c3e498ade24a066f820e24846008ae,
cnASHISH PAWAR
Date: 2017.11.15 15:41:43 +05’30’