Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 220 (MP)

Usha Bai v. Dule Singh

2016-03-11

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief the Code) has been filed against the order dated 27.5.2015; whereby Criminal Revision No.201/2014, filed by the non-applicant husband was partly allowed; whereas Criminal Revision No.202/2014, filed by the applicant-wife was dismissed and the order of granting maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month has been maintained. 2. Applicant-wife has filed an application under section 125 of the Code against the non-applicant husband for maintenance. After inquiry, learned Magistrate allowed the application vide order dated 28.10.2014 and directed the non-applicant-husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant-wife. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed a revision for enhancement; whereas non-applicant husband was also aggrieved by the order of maintenance. Learned ASJ, Agar partly allowed the revision of the non-applicant husband and modified the order to the extent that non-applicant shall pay maintenance from the date of order instead of date of filing of application; whereas dismissed the revision of applicant-wife for enhancement of maintenance. Being aggrieved, the applicant-wife has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the applicant-wife has produced revenue papers to demonstrate that non-applicant-husband owns 3.970 hectare of irrigated agricultural land and he earns Rs.4,00,000/- per year but the Courts below have not considered the evidence in right prospects and awarded a meager sum of amount i.e. Rs.2,000/- per month. He prays that the amount be enhanced at least Rs.6,000/- per month. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant husband vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the applicant has failed to prove the income of the non-applicant-husband. Courts below have rightly awarded the amount of maintenance and no interference is called for by this Court. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 6. The applicant-wife deposed that non-applicant-husband earns Rs.4,00,000/- per year and owns 21 bighas of irrigated agricultural land. In support, she has filed copy of Khasra entries i.e. P-1 and P-2. Her evidence is corroborated by witnesses Ishwar PW2 and Ratanlal PW3. There is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their version. Non-applicant-husband and his witnesses Mangilal and Babulal have not controverted this evidence. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence produced by the applicantwife. 7. In support, she has filed copy of Khasra entries i.e. P-1 and P-2. Her evidence is corroborated by witnesses Ishwar PW2 and Ratanlal PW3. There is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their version. Non-applicant-husband and his witnesses Mangilal and Babulal have not controverted this evidence. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence produced by the applicantwife. 7. With the aforesaid, I am of the view that applicant-wife has successfully proved that income of non-applicanthusband is Rs.4,00,000/- per year. The Courts below have awarded only Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant-wife. The amount is lower side, therefore, the applicant-wife is entitled for maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, the petition is allowed and non-applicant husband is directed to pay the maintenance to the applicant-wife @ Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand Rupees) per month from the date of order of trial Court i.e. 28.10.2014. 8. Thus, the petition is allowed as indicated above.