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