Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 116 (MP)

Ravi Kumar Bajpai v. Renu Awashty Bajpai

2018-01-30

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO

body2018
ORDER : Sushil Kumar Palo, J. Heard. Both the revision arises out of order dated 05.08.2016 passed by 2nd ASJ, Hoshangabad, in criminal appeal No. 267/2015 the revisions involve the same facts and law. Therefore, both the revisions are heard analogously and are decide by this common order. 2. Revision No. 2320/2016 under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-Pavi Kumar Bajpai and Rejendra Bajpai, the husband and father-in-law of respondent/complainant to set aside the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by 2nd A.S.J. Hoshangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 267/2015 wherein the order dated 20.11.2015 passed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act by the learned J.M.F.C., Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 59/2010 has been affirmed. The learned J.M.F.C. has allowed the respondent Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance and also directed the petitioner to pay the price of the ornaments and articles as per Ex. P-1 and P/2 documents. 3. The complainant/wife has filed Criminal Revision 2803/2016 under Section 401 read with 397 of the Cr.P.C., claiming enhancement of the maintenance amount granted to her, she claimed to set aside order dated 05.08.2016, passed by 2nd A.S.J., Hoshangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2016 and request for setting aside the order wherein the claim of the complainant/wife for enhancement of maintenance has been dismissed. 4. The learned appellate Court slightly modified the order stating that if the original ornaments are returned by the petitioners, the petitioners need pay the value of the ornaments. 5. The petitioners preferred this revision on the ground that the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate that there was any demand of dowry made by the petitioners. The respondent/complainant has proved ill-treatment of the complainant. The appellate Court has also observed at paragraph 42 of the judgment that the respondent could produce any document with regard to her service or income, even then the appellate Court has wrongly affirmed the order of the trial Court by which maintenance has been granted to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month. The petitioners have further contended that he has paid more than Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lac Only) in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., following the directions of the trial Court. 6. It is claimed that the complainant/wife herself quarrelled with the petitioners. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month. The petitioners have further contended that he has paid more than Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lac Only) in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., following the directions of the trial Court. 6. It is claimed that the complainant/wife herself quarrelled with the petitioners. She wants to reside separately and left the marital house along with the ornaments and articles without informing the petitioners. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and the appellate Court, i.e. orders dated 05.08.2016 and 20.11.2015 respectively, are good in the eyes of law. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is disputed that the respondent is the legally wedded wife. Immediately after the marriage, the relationship of the complaint with her husband became estranged. Because of which the respondent though wanted to live with the petitioner No. 1 but for demand of dowry and harassment's, she had to live separately. She was harassed and tortured in the family of in-laws. The evidence clearly indicates that there is harassment. She was a working woman and was earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) per month. But the in-laws of the complainant, insisted her to work. Therefore, on their saying she left the job. Hence, the complainant who was earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) per month require to maintain herself in that standard. Therefore, Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month is sufficient amount for her. The complainant has filed Criminal Revision No. 2803/2016 for enhancement of the maintenance. 8. The complainant/wife has claimed that her husband-Ravi Kumar was paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lac Only) at the time of marriage besides the ornament and home appliances (Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2). She also claimed that the husband/non-applicant is earning Rs. 75,375/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five Only) per month while maintenance has been awarded only at the rate Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month which ought to have been Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) per month. However no document in this regard has been filed by the complainant/wife. 9. Much stress has been given by the counsel for the petitioners that at paragraph 42 of the order of the revisional Court it is held that the respondent has proved that she was working and was earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) per month. However no document in this regard has been filed by the complainant/wife. 9. Much stress has been given by the counsel for the petitioners that at paragraph 42 of the order of the revisional Court it is held that the respondent has proved that she was working and was earning Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) per month. Despite that, maintenance has been granted to the complainant @ Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month. It is also held that there has been contradictions in the statements of the complainant-Renu Awasthy Bajpai, her mother Urmila and her father/Girija Shankar Awasty, though held to be reliable, yet the learned trial Court and the appellate Court have held that the value of the ornaments are to be returned to the complainant. 10. On perusal of the evidence, it is found that marriage was solemnized on 22.02.2008. Subsequently, the complainant was taunted for bringing enough dowry. The "streedhan" or the items which she received at the time of the marriage were also taken away by the petitioners. The evidence also show that the bill Ex. P-1 for purchase of ornaments and bill Ex. P-2 purchase of the domestic appliances have been proved. 11. Even if the complainant/wife is serving, even then, the petitioner/husband cannot escape the liability of maintenance. The inherent and fundamental principle behind maintenance is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish, that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her marital home. Statue commands that there has to be some accepted arrangement, so that, she can sustain herself. The sustenance does mean and can never allow to mean merely survival. The woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither, arranging for sustenance. She is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have leaved in her house of her husband. And that is where the status and economic strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband become a permanent one. The maintenance has to be adequate so that the wife came live with dignity, as she would have leaved in her matrimonial home. And that is where the status and economic strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband become a permanent one. The maintenance has to be adequate so that the wife came live with dignity, as she would have leaved in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to be a destitute or baggar. Therefore, if the Court has shown sympathy to the wife in granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month, keeping in view her status and the present inflation, it can be considered to be excessive. 12. In this regard the salary of the petitioner/husband has to be taken into account. The revisional Court has ascertained that the income of the husband was Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand Only) per month. Therefore, Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) which is less than ? of the salary per month is in the higher side. 13. So far as the amount of the ornaments and home appliances are concerned, the revisional Court has considered at paragraph 43 that if the items are returned it would be well and good but if the same is returned the value of the goods of Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-2 should be returned but value of gold at the relevant time was Rs. 11,800/- (Rs. Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Only) per 10 gram. Whereas during November-2015 the value of gold has become Rs. 24,500/- (Rs. Twenty Four Thousand and Five Hundred Only) per 10 gram, therefore, the total value of 1,59.237/- gram of gold comes to Rs. 3,90,131/- and this value be refunded. 14. It would be appropriate to mention here that the value has been calculated by the learned revisional Court arithmetically. May be mathematically it is correct. The ornaments which was given at the time of marriage in the year 2008, therefore, the value of old ornaments would be the same, as the new ornaments. This angle of calculation was taken into account. Hence it would be appropriate to order that the value of ornaments can be assessed as Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Fifty Thousand Only). Therefore, instead of Rs. 3,90,131/- (Rs. Three Lac Ninety Thousand and One Hundred Thirty One Rs. Only) a some of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Fifty Thousand Only) in the head of ornament, would be appropriate. Hence it would be appropriate to order that the value of ornaments can be assessed as Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Fifty Thousand Only). Therefore, instead of Rs. 3,90,131/- (Rs. Three Lac Ninety Thousand and One Hundred Thirty One Rs. Only) a some of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Fifty Thousand Only) in the head of ornament, would be appropriate. Besides the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 12,300/- of the value of the goods. 15. The complainant/wife failed to prove the income of the non-applicant/husband except the oral evidence, nothing concrete has been submitted in this regard. Though it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on high pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home the situation is a quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes her faith in life reduces. Sometimes she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless-ness carried has brought her the misfortune. 16. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give money to re-comfort her. That is only the soothing legal balm. For she cannot allow to resign to destiny. Therefore, it felt necessary to grant of maintenance. 17. In absence of a documentary evidence the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has estimated the income of husband to Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) per month is reasonable and appreciable. That being so, it is obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to take a plea that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraint as long as he is a capable of earning. But it cannot be an amount to lead a luxurious life. The amount of maintenance should be for the sustenance only. A husband must not atarve himself in order to maintain his wife. His capacity to work is material. Therefore, the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month to the complainant/wife is proper and sufficient. 18. In view of the above discussion and the principles discussed above it would be appropriate to record the consequential conclusion that Criminal Revision No. 2320/2016 is partly allowed the value of ornament is reduced to Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) per month to the complainant/wife is proper and sufficient. 18. In view of the above discussion and the principles discussed above it would be appropriate to record the consequential conclusion that Criminal Revision No. 2320/2016 is partly allowed the value of ornament is reduced to Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Fifty Thousand Only) and Criminal Revision No. 2830/2016 is dismissed.