SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suryakant Chhaniya (Soni) vs Smt. Neetu Chhaniya (Soni) on 7 December, 2017

Cr.R. No. 149/2017
07.12.2017

Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the non-
applicants.

The applicant has filed the present revision challenging
the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family
Court, Katni in Miscellaneous Case No.182/2015, thereby
allowed the application preferred by non-applicant under
Section 125 of of Cr.P.C. The marriage between the applicant
and non-applicant no.1 was solemnized on 11.07.2008
according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The non-applicant no.1
thereafter has given birth to the non-applicant nos.2 and 3 out
of their wedlock. The non-applicants thereafter, filed an
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C before the Family
Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) per month alleging that the applicant
and his family members started harassing her for the demand of
dowry. The non-applicant no.1 has also lodged the report
against the applicant and his family members under Section
498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which is pending. It has further been alleged
in the application that the non-applicant is residing with her
father from August, 2013 and she does not have any source of
income. It has further been alleged that the applicant is earning
Rs.2,50,000/-per month from different sources.

The applicant has filed his reply to the said application
denying all the allegations made therein. The applicant has
denied that he or his family members have never harassed the
non-applicant no.1 for the dowry. The non-applicant is residing
separately from him without any sufficient reason. The
applicant has further stated that the applicant is working in his
father’s shop and is earning only Rs.4,000/-per month whereas
the non-applicant is doing business in the name of “Neetu
Jewellers” and earning Rs.2,00,000/-per month. It has further
been submitted that the applicant has also filed an application
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the non-
applicant no.1 for restitution of conjugal rights. The applicant
has further stated in the application that the non-applicant no.1
has started misbehaving with the parents of the applicant and
used to threatening to implicate whole family in false case,
which compelled the applicant to make a written complaint to
the police on 23.07.2010 and he also submitted number of
complaints. After recording the evidence by both the parties,
the learned Family Court vide order dated 04.11.2016 allowed
the application and directed to applicant to pay Rs.15,000/-per
month to non-applicant no.1 and Rs.5,000/- each to non-
applicant nos. 2 3 respectively from the date of application.

Being aggrieved by that order the applicant has filed the
present revision. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicant argues that the amount of maintenance awarded
by Family Court is of higher side. He submits that the applicant
is working in his father’s shop and is earning Rs.4,000/-per
month. He further submits that the non-applicant no.1 had left
the house of the applicant without any sufficient reason. He
further argues that the Family Court has failed to consider that
the non-applicant is doing the business in the name of “Neetu
Jewellers” and is earning Rs.2,00,000/-per month. In view of
the aforesaid, he submits that the order passed by the Family
Court be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the non-applicant supports the order passed by the
Family Court. He submits that the applicant and his family
members started harassing the non-applicant no.1 for demand
of dowry. Earlier the father of the non-applicant no.1 has
fulfilled the demands, however, in spite of that the behaviour
of the applicant and his family members was not changed and
they continue to demand a dowry from her. Because of these,
the non-applicant no.1 started residing with her parents and
thereafter, she file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
For maintenance. He submits that the Family Court after due
appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly
allowed the application filed by the non-applicant.

He further submits that the applicant is an owner of shop
with named and style as Jewellers Hanumant Chhaya situated
at Sarafa Bazar, District Jabalpur, is a registered owner of the
said shop and is regularily paying the tax in the Sales Tax
Department. It is further submitted that the applicant is the
owner of the land, which is situated at Barela, District
Jabalpur. Since the non-applicant is harassing the applicant
therefore there were sufficient reasons with the non-applicant
from residing separately from the applicant. It has further been
submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded by the
Family Court is just and proper according to the existing high
inflation price. So far as the shop named as Neetu Jewellers,
which according to the applicant belongs to the non-applicant
no.1 is concerned, he submits that the said shop does not
belong to the non-applicant no.1. Uncle of the non-applicant
no.1 is the owner of the said shop, who resides separately from
the non-applicant and her family. He further submits that the
non-applicant does not have any source of income and,
therefore, the order passed by Family Court is not just and
proper. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the Case of Jasbir Kaur Sahgal vs. District Judge
Dehradun and others, 1997 (7) SCC 7, as well as the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Munni Bai w/o
Jagdish Rathore vs. Jagdish s/o Bhagirath Rathore, 1998
(2) MPLJ 339.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as the order passed by the Family Court.

From perusal of the record it reveals that the marriage of
non-applicant no.1 and the applicant was solemnized in 2008
according to Hindu Rites and Costumes. Non-applicant nos.2
3 are the son and daughter of the applicant and the non-
applicant no.1. After the marriage, the applicant and his family
members started harassing physically as well as mentally to the
non-applicant no.1 for demand of dowry and, therefore, she left
the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents.
Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance for herself as well as for non-
applicant nos.2 3. The Family Court after hearing both the
parties and recording the evidence has allowed the application
and awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the non-
applicant no.1 and Rs.5,000/- each to the non-applicant nos.2
3.

Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed the
present revision on the ground that the amount of maintenance
awarded by the Family Court is on higher side. According to
the applicant, he is working in his father’s shop and is earning
Rs.4,000/-per month, however, from the documents which is
filed by the non-applicant along with reply as well as before
the Family Court, it reveals that the applicant is the owner of
the shop by name and style as Jewellers Hanumant Chhaya
situated at Darhai Road, Sarafa Bazaar, District Jabalpur.
Applicant being registered owner of the shop is also regularly
paying the tax at Sales Tax Department. As per the list issued
by Sarafa Association, Jabalpur, the name of the applicant
found at Serial No.434 and it shows that he is the owner of the
said shop. He also possesses the agricultural land. The non-
applicant in her statement has admitted that his earning
Rs.2,00,000/- per month from the shop situated at Sarafa and,
therefore, as the applicant is the proprietor of the shop
Hanumant Chhaya from which according to the applicant is
earning Rs.2,00,000/-per month. Looking to the life style as
well as income of the non-applicant, the Family Court has
awarded Rs.15,000/-per month to the non-applicant no.1 and
5,000/-each to the non-applicant nos.2 3.

So far as, the income of the non-applicant no.1 is
concerned, the non-applicant in her statement has stated that
the shop which is situated in Sarafa Bazar, Jabalpur in the
name of Neetu Chaniya, who is not the owner of the said shop.
The applicant has not produced any document to show that the
non-applicant no.1 is the proprietor of the said shop and is
doing the business. On the basis of this, the Family Court has
given a finding that the non-applicant is having no source of
income. So far as, the income of her parents which can not be
taken into consideration while awarding the maintenance to the
non-applicants.

This Court in the case of Munni Bai (supra) while
dealing with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, para 26 has held that the income of the wife’s
parents or other relations which cannot be taken into account
so as to constitute good cause for not granting interim
maintenance and expenses of the proceeding. Similarly, the
Apex Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra), in
para 8 has held as under :-

“The court has to consider the status of
the parties, their respective needs, the capacity
of the husband to pay having regard to his
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance
and of those he is obliged under the law and
statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed
for the wife should be such as she can live in
reasonable comfort considering her status and
the mode of life she was used to when she lived
with her husband and also that she does not feel
handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At
the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be
excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances
of the present case we fix maintenance pendente
lite at the rate of Rs.5000 per month payable by
the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife.”

As per the said judgement passed by the Apex Court, the
amount of maintenance fix for the wife should be such as she
can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode
of life she was used to live when she lives with her husband.
Thus, in light of the judgement passed by the Apex Court as
well as over all evidences available on record the amount of
maintenance awarded by the Family Court is just and proper.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere into the said
order.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision is dismissed.

(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar)
Judge
pnm

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh