Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 895 (MP)

Deepak Katakwar v. Anita Katakwar

2017-08-09

SUJOY PAUL

body2017
ORDER : Sujay Paul, J. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 15.10.2015 whereby the application filed by the respondent under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed by the Court below and petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. In addition Rs. 5,000/- as expense of litigation was also directed to be paid. 2. Mr. Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized this order on singular ground. By taking this Court to para No.12 of the impugned order, it is urged that the Court below had reached to a conclusion that petitioner is owner of 4.617 acre of irrigated agricultural land in Village Mathni. Considering this piece of land, the Court below opined that petitioner is a financially capable person and accordingly aforesaid amount was directed to be paid. Mr. Sarwate, submits that a very crucial document (revenue record) has escaped notice of the Court below. By taking this Court to the said revenue entry, it is urged that the aforesaid land is jointly owned and in possession of petitioner and his brother Praveen Kumar. The petitioner is not the sole owner and cultivator of said land. Accordingly, the amount arrived at is based on wrong foundation. He prayed that the amount may be reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. In addition, it is submitted that pursuant to a different order passed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner is already paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. On this solitary ground Mr. Sarwate, prayed for reducing the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 3. Prayer is opposed by Mr. S.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent. However, despite specific quarry from the Bench Mr. Thakur is unable to refute the contention that the land which became reason for issuance of directions regarding payment is owned by two persons and this fact has not been considered by the Court below. This Court on 14.07.2017 directed the respondent-wife to file reply justifying the quantum of maintenance pandente lite of Rs. 4,000/- per month in view of getting Rs. 3,000/- per month pursuant to a different enactment namely Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. No reply has been filed by the respondent. 4. This Court on 14.07.2017 directed the respondent-wife to file reply justifying the quantum of maintenance pandente lite of Rs. 4,000/- per month in view of getting Rs. 3,000/- per month pursuant to a different enactment namely Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. No reply has been filed by the respondent. 4. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The singular point raised by the petitioner could not be demolished by the respondent. Thus, it appears that a material document has not been considered by the Court below. The said document (revenue entry) clearly shows that the relevant piece of land is owned by two persons. Accordingly, I find justification in the submission that the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month may be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- per month. The respondent has not rebutted the contention that, in addition, she is getting Rs. 3,000/- per month under the Act of 2005. 6. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 15.10.2015 is modified. The amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month directed to be paid by the Court below is modified as Rs. 2,000/- per month. The remaining operative portion of the impugned order is upheld. Petition is partly allowed. No cost.