Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 196 (MP)

Viveek Singh Parihar v. Sweeta Singh Parihar

2015-02-13

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2015
JUDGMENT: Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant-husband being aggrieved order dated 06.01.2015, passed in Case No. 206/2013, by the learned Family Court Rewa, whereby the Family Court allowing the application filed by the respondent granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife. 2. This is admitted position that on 26.05.2013 at Raj Palace Bodabag, Rewa marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu Rituals. 3. After marriage, on 27 May 2013, respondent went to the house of the applicant at Village Sijhata, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan. According to the respondent, from beginning the applicant was demanding five lacs rupees cash and a four wheeler as dowry, and she was also tortured by other family members of the applicant. Thereafter, she did not go in her in-laws house and filed the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against the applicant before the learned Family Court for claiming maintenance. Explaining source of income of the applicant also prayed for interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. 4. The applicant entered his appearance by filing reply and denied the averments of the respondent and stated that the respondent has filed the said application for maintenance on false and concocted grounds. After marriage the applicant and his family members always kept the respondent in very cordial and affectionate manner and never mal-treated her. The respondent is Epilepsy patient as after four days of the marriage, she fell down unconscious. Dr. Praveen Kumar Baghel who treated the respondent, stated that she is a patient of Epilepsy by birth. The respondent was checked-up by many doctors at other places but she never recuperated. Thereafter, the respondent went to her paternal house and on 11.07.2013 filed the case against the applicant before the Family Court. 5. The learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent. The applicant being aggrieved of the said order filed the revision before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has not filed any affidavit or documentary evidence and has not filed any evidence regarding the income of the applicant, hence impugned order is erroneous. 7. The applicant being aggrieved of the said order filed the revision before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has not filed any affidavit or documentary evidence and has not filed any evidence regarding the income of the applicant, hence impugned order is erroneous. 7. Learned Family Court after taking note of undisputed position fact of marriage as well as after considering the pay slip filed by the applicant himself, allowing the application directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance in para 10 of impugned order, which reads as under:- 8. After perusal of the impugned order and other documents available on record of learned Court below rightly found that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the present dispute is related only with the interim maintenance award. 10. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by the Apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in (: AIR 1978 SC 1807 ) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 11. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted by the Apex Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in [: 2005(2) SCC 503]. 12. It is also held by the Apex Court that interim maintenance pendente lite can be granted - Please see- Savitri vs. Govind, reported in [ AIR 1986 SC 984 : (1985) 4 SCC 337 : 1985 SCC (Cr) 556 : (1985) 2 Crimes 872]. 13. Learned Judge of the Family Court in the facts of the present case has come to a right conclusion that the respondent is entitled to get interim maintenance from the applicant. 13. Learned Judge of the Family Court in the facts of the present case has come to a right conclusion that the respondent is entitled to get interim maintenance from the applicant. It is apparent from the above mentioned relief clause of the impugned order that the date 20.11.2013 payment of interim maintenance is legally correct but, remaining part of the impugned order is not legally correct by which Family Court straight way directed the applicant-husband to deposit the interim maintenance amount within 15 days, which requires to be corrected. 14. Before parting with the case, it is directed that the learned Family Court will give the appropriate opportunity to both the parties being heard on the basis of their submissions learned Family Court will decide the question what will be the time period for payment of interim maintenance, instead of 15 days. 15. Revision is partly allowed with the aforesaid instructions.