Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 126 (MP)

Haridas v. Meera Bai

2018-01-31

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2018
ORDER : Vandana Kasrekar, J. 1. The applicant has filed this revision challenging the order dated 9.6.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Burhanpur whereby the Family Court has partly allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. arid directed to pay the amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,500 to the respondent. The respondent has initiated the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the applicant before the Family Court, Burhanpur on the ground that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was performed on 20.5.2010 at Burhanpur. After performing the marriage, the applicant was cruel with the respondent and demanded money from her parents. Thereafter, he started harassing physically as well as mentally to the respondent. Therefore, she was forced to left the house of the applicant and started living with her parental house. 2. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the Trial Court and filed its reply in which he denied the allegations made in the application. He submits that the respondent herself has left the matrimonial house without any sufficient reason. He further submits that the Family Court, Burhanpur has already passed the decree of divorce on 5.5.2016 and she is not wife of the applicant and in that case also, the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 2,000 per month which he is paying to the respondent continuously, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 3. The Family Court after recording the evidence of both the parties has passed an order dated 9.6.2017 and directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500 per month to the respondent. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the amount awarded by the Family Court is on higher side. He submits that the respondent has left the matrimonial house of the applicant without any sufficient reason. He further submits that a decree of divorce has already been passed by the Family Court, Burhanpur and in that case the Family Court has directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month, therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance. 5. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent, even though served. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 2,000 per month, therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance. 5. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent, even though served. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the Family Court after recording the evidence of both the parties has found that due to the cruelty committed by the applicant she has left the matrimonial home. The respondent has also filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant and his family members, which is still pending. A decree of divorce has also been passed by the Family Court on 5.5.2016 and while passing the decree, the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000 per month towards the permanent alimony, however, the said order is not complied with by the applicant. Thus, on the basis of oral evidence on record, the Family Court has come to conclusion that the respondent has no source of income. Although, the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000 per month towards permanent alimony in divorce case. However, the said amount is not sufficient for the respondent to maintain herself, therefore, the Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,500 per month to the respondent which is just and proper looking to the income of the applicant. 7. Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere into the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.