Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 120 (MP)

Anita Sharma v. Ramjilal Sharma

2006-01-19

S.C.VYAS

body2006
ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 19.5.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 2002, whereby the order dated 31.10.2002 passed in CriMJC No. 57/2002 by JMFC Kukshi in respect of grant of interim alimony to the wife applicant has been set aside and quashed, but maintained the order with regard to grant of maintenance to her son @ Rs. 750/- per month during pendency of the application filed by applicant wife under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicant wife has filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Magistrate. During pendency of this application a prayer for grant of interim alimony was made by the applicant. The trial Magistrate has granted Rs. 1,000/- per month as interim alimony to the applicant wife and Rs. 750/- for her son applicant No.2. 3. The non-applicant husband has filed a revision against the said order. In revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of trial Magistrate as stated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge this revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for applicant wife Ms. Seema Sharma has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error of law in disallowing the interim alimony granted by the trial Magistrate. She has placed reliance on a judgment reported in the matter of Ashok Dutta Gupta and another v. Sujit Dutta Gupta and another [ (2000) 9 SCC 193 ] in which the apex Court has held that "ends of justice never warranted such reduction. If the Magistrate had granted only the amount now fixed by the High Court perhaps the ends of justice would have warranted for enhancing the amount to the higher limit." The apex Court has allowed the appeal and restored the amount fixed by the Magistrate in respect of both the applicants. 5. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on an another judgment reported in the matter of Johnson M. Joseph v. Anita Johnson and another, [2001 (II) MPWN 159 = 2001 (2) MPLJ 675 ]. In this case His Lordship has held that the word 'maintain' or 'maintenance' should be interpreted in such a way that the applicant gets a amount to meet the necessities of life. In this case His Lordship has held that the word 'maintain' or 'maintenance' should be interpreted in such a way that the applicant gets a amount to meet the necessities of life. It is well known that food, clothing and shelter are the basic necessities of a person. A working woman is required to spend more than a house-wife as she has to work in the office and also to keep her household. She is entitled to lead a decent life commensurate with the status of her husband and the family. Her petition cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that she is earning something. Her income should be sufficient to meet her necessities. Her income can be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of maintenance to be allowed to her. The expression 'unable to maintain herself' does not mean that the wife should be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 of the Code". 6. In the light of the observations made in the above referred judgments of the apex Court as well as of this Court, it is certainly clear that the Additional Sessions Judge has absolutely arrived at a wrong conclusion in disallowing the interim maintenance granted by the trial Magistrate. It is no doubt, true, that applicant wife is working as a Anganwadi worker and earning Rs. 1,000/- as Mandey, which is not sufficient to my mind, looking to the present needs of life. Following the observations made by learned single Judge in the matter of Johnson M. Joseph (supra) the applicant wife is entitled to get the interim alimony. 7. On going through the record and the application filed by applicant it is evident that non-applicant is getting Rs. 8,500/- as salary. An affidavit in support of the application has also been filed by the applicant, whereas in rebuttal the non-applicant did not file any counter affidavit and cogent evidence. He has simply filed a reply stating that he is getting Rs. 3,000/per month as salary. 8. Learned counsel Shri Akshat Pahadiya, appearing for non-applicant husband has supported the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge. 9. The learned counsel appearing for non-applicant was not able to point out any grounds so as to maintain the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. 3,000/per month as salary. 8. Learned counsel Shri Akshat Pahadiya, appearing for non-applicant husband has supported the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge. 9. The learned counsel appearing for non-applicant was not able to point out any grounds so as to maintain the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. In my view the learned Additional Sessions Judge has overlooked the factual aspects of matter and committed a grave error, and unnecessarily interfered in the order passed by the trial Magistrate, as there was no scope of interference at all. 11. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.7.2004 passed by ASJ is hereby quashed and set aside and restore the order of the trial Magistrate.