Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 378 (MP)

Namrata Pathak v. Santosh Pathak

2014-04-03

TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL

body2014
Judgment: Present petition has been directed against the order dated 5.3.2012 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 689/2011 by which the order of grant of maintenance passed by the JMFC, Bhopal in MJC No. 12/2010 was set aside. 2. Necessary facts of the matter in short are that the petitioner no.1 and non applicant were married on 26.6.2004 at Bhopal. Coupled was blessed with a son the petitioner no.2. On 28.3.2005, petitioner lodged a report on phone with help line Mahila Police Station Bhopal alleging that she is facing repeated demands in the matrimonial house. Petitioner preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance in the Court of JMFC. On 17.10.2006 respondent was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as maintenance. Thereafter, petitioner moved a petition under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act (for short `the Act') and demanded more maintenance for both the petitioners. Vide order dated 30.11.2011 under Section 23 of the Act respondent was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to wife and Rs. 2000/- per month to petitioner no.2 minor. 3. Appellate Court declined the aforesaid extra maintenance on the ground that at one point of time petitioner no.1 has also worked in the private company and was getting Rs. 3000/- per month. No documentary evidence has been produced to show that income of respondent comes to Rs. 45,000/- per month rather his income in the payslip which was produced comes to Rs. 9500/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this fact has not been taken into consideration that wife has left the job thereafter and minor son of 4 years is also with her and also she is incurring more expenses on him as well as she is unable to work. 5. On having comparative look of both the orders i.e. the order of appellate Court as well as the Magistrate, considering the income of husband and also needs of the wife and minor son, in the fitness of the things, it is directed that respondent shall pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to minor son. 6. In view of the fact that wife is already receiving Rs. 3000/- per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as maintenance, no separate order is necessary for her. In all husband shall pay Rs. 6000/- per month to both the petitioners. 3000/- per month as maintenance to minor son. 6. In view of the fact that wife is already receiving Rs. 3000/- per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as maintenance, no separate order is necessary for her. In all husband shall pay Rs. 6000/- per month to both the petitioners. 7. This order shall be effective from the date of the petition. 8. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C. c. as per rules.