Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1013 (MP)

Gaurav Lohiya v. Nidhi Lohiya

2017-09-21

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2017
ORDER 1. This revision has been filed under Sections 397, 401 of CrPC against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed in Miscellenous Criminal Case No.259/2009 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. The applicant has impugned the direction given by the Family Court to the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month respectively to each of the respondents by way of interim maintenance. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondents have filed an application under section125 of CrPC in the year 2009 for grant of maintenance on the ground that the applicant has deserted them. The applicant is a Scientist working in Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad and is earning a monthly salary of Rs.48,000/-. Thus, a prayer for grant of Rs.16,000/- per month to each of the respondents was made. 3. The application was opposed by the applicant. It was mentioned that the respondent No.1 is residing separately without any reasonable reason. The respondent No.1 is a literate lady working in the CSM Department of Jiwaji University and she is getting a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and her take home salary is Rs.5,902/-, therefore, respondents are not entitled for any interim maintenance. 4. The respondents also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance, which was considered by the trial Court by order dated 12.11.2009. Considering the fact that the take home salary of the applicant is Rs.39,035/-, whereas the take home salary of respondent no.1 is only Rs.5,902/-, the trial Court directed that the applicant shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 by way of interim maintenance. 5. As none appeared for the parties, therefore, this Court has perused the revision application as well as the documents annexed therewith. 6. So far as grant of maintenance is concerned, the applicant has not denied the factum of marriage with respondent No.1 and paternity of respondent No.2, therefore, considering the social status of the parties as well as the monthly income of the applicant and the monthly income of respondent No.1, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not commit any mistake in granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month respectively to each of the respondents. 7. 7. This Court on 21.12.2009 had issued notice to the respondents and had also called the record of the trial Court, however, the record of the trial Court was sent back in the year 2011. Six more years have passed thereafter. It is not known that whether the application under section125 of CrPC is still pending or not. Under these circumstances, it is directed that in case if the application under section125 of CrPC is still pending, then the trial Court shall endeavour to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.