SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinesh Singh vs Neha Singh on 12 December, 2017

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR

Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

Vinesh Singh

Vs.

Neha Singh Another.

Present : Hon’ble Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, J.

Mr. Ashul Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Ashok Choudhary, learned counsel for the
respondents.

O R D E R

(12.12.2017)

The applicant has filed this revision against the order

dated 18.08.2017 passed by Second Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in M.J.C. No.65/2015, whereby

the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure preferred by the respondents has been allowed and

awarded the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- to

respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage

between the applicant and the respondent No.1 was

solemnized on 27.02.2009. Respondent No.2 is a girl child

born out of said wedlock. After marriage, the applicant and

respondent No.1 lived together for 9 years in a joint family.
2

Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

The respondent No.1 found it difficult to accept the applicant

and his family values and she was not ready to live in joint

family and pressurised the applicant to live separately. In the

year 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with ITPC Convulsion

Disorder caused due to a benign cyst in his brain. The said

cyst is inoperable due to low blood platelets. Thereafter,

respondent No.1 called her parents and left the applicant’s

house on 27.05.2013. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint

in a public hearing against the applicant and his family

members and took respondent No.2 with her. In order to

save his marriage, the applicant succumbed to respondents

pressure and left his parents home and started living

separately with the respondents. The respondent No.1 was an

absent spouse and did not adhere to the role and

responsibilities as a wife. The respondent No.1 used to be

busy on her phone all the time. The respondent No.1 treated

the applicant in a very inhuman manner. For the sake of

saving his matrimonial ties and for the sake of his young

daughter, the applicant filed an application under Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal

rights. The respondent No.1 filed an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

maintenance for herself and her daughter to the tune of

Rs.30,000/- per month. The applicant filed the reply to the
3
Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

said application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and refuted the allegations made therein. It is

mentioned that the applicant is not earning any amount as

he is suffering from ITPC Convulsion Disorder caused due to

a benign cyst and all his expenses were borne by his parents.

The family Court after recording the evidence has passed the

order dated 18.08.2017, thereby partly allowing the

application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has

filed the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

impugned order passed by the Family Court is on higher side.

It is submitted that the family Court while passing the order

has not considered that the applicant is suffering from ITPC

Convulsion Disorder and he is not earning and totally

dependant on his parents. It is further submitted that the

respondents have not adduced any evidence with regard to

the proof of income, hence no maintenance would have been

granted. It is further submitted that the family Court has

failed to appreciate that the documents Ex. D/1 to D/4 goes

to show that he has gifted the said properties owing to

financial distress as he was unable to meet the medical

expenses of his disease. It is further submitted that the
4
Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

disease was diagnosed in the year 2010 and since then, he

has been continuously taking medical treatment. It is further

submitted that the respondent No.1 is a educated lady and is

earning well to sustain herself. It is also submitted that the

family Court has failed to prove that the respondent No.1 is

living separately without any sufficient cause and therefore,

is not entitled to get any maintenance.

4. The respondents supports the order passed by the

Family Court and submits that the amount of maintenance

awarded by the Family Court is just and proper looking to the

income of the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record as well as the order passed by the Family

Court. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties,

it appears that the applicant is continuously harassing the

respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has also lodged an FIR

against the applicant on 11.02.2014 at Police Station Piplani.

The applicant has left the respondent No.1 without any

reason. The respondent No.1 has further stated that she has

never left the company of the applicant on the contrary it is

the applicant, who left her. The applicant has also filed RCS

No.515 A/2016, which was decided on 18.01.2016, wherein it
5
Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

has been held that applicant has failed to proved that the

respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient

cause. The respondent No.1 has also filed an application

under Domestic Violence Act, which was decided in favour of

the respondent No.1. The applicant has not rebutted the

evidence produced by the respondent No.1. Thus, on the

basis of the evidence, the Family Court has held that there

was sufficient reason for the respondent No.1 to reside

separately from the applicant. Thus, I do not find any reason

to interfere in the said findings. So far as income of the

applicant is concerned, the respondent No.1 in her statement

has stated that at the time of marriage as well as today itself,

the applicant is doing business of supplying building material,

from which he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further

submitted that the applicant is a owner of the irrigated land

of 3 acres situated at Gudawar, Raisen, truck, tractor and

trolley registered in the name of applicant and in support of

her statement, she has filed copies of Khasra entries Ex.P/1.

Kishtaband Khatoni Ex.P/2 and copy of registration of truck

and tractor and trolley in favour of the applicant is at Ex.P/4

and Ex.P/5. The applicant in his statement has stated that all

the ancestral property which has been given to him has been

expended in his medical treatment and at present his father

is doing his medical treatment. It is further submitted that for
6
Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

his treatment, he has sold plot vide Ex.D/1 as well as truck

vide Ex. D/2 and agricultural land was sold by him vide

Ex.D/4. It is further submitted that he is not earning anything

at present. In cross-examination, the applicant has admitted

that he has relinquished all his rights in favour of his brother

Hotamsingh and sold the truck in favour of Mangilal Banjare

and dumper in favour of Diwansingh and it is stated that

truck, dumper and land has been sold by him before filing of

application for maintenance by the respondent No.1. It is

further submitted that he has received an amount of Rs.2

lakhs for relinquishment of his rights and Rs.50,000/- towards

sale of truck, Rs.2 lakhs towards sale of dumper and Rs. 5

lakhs towards sale of agricultural land and he has done his

treatment out of the said amount. However, the respondent

No.1 submits that bill Ex. P/10 shows that the applicant is

still doing business of supplying building material. After

perusal of the documents Ex.D/1 Relinquishment Deed, Ex.

D/2 Registration of truck and registration of tractor and

Ex.D/4 Gift Deed, it appears that all the documents are after

filing of application by the respondent No.1 under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also appears that

Ex.D/1, D/2 and D/4 does not mention anything about

necessity of money by the applicant for his treatment and all

those documents are executed after filing of the application
7
Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the

respondent No.1 and are in favour of his brothers.

6. On the basis of over all evidence, the Family Court

has given a conclusion that all the aforesaid properties have

been disposed of by the applicant only to defeat the claim of

respondent No.1 for maintenance. Thus, in the light of oral

evidence as well as documentary evidence available on

record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order

passed by the family Court. Accordingly, the revision is

dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar)
Judge

RC

Digitally signed by RASHMI
CHIKANE
Date: 2017.12.12 15:39:55
+05’30’
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR

Criminal Revision No.2467/2017

Vinesh Singh

Vs.

Neha Singh Another.

ORDER

Post it for : 12.12.2017

(Ms. Justice Vandana Kasrekar)
JUDGE
11.12.2017

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