Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 996 (MP)

Lawrence Robertson v. Vani Jogi

2018-12-03

ANJULI PALO

body2018
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.6.2018 passed in MJC No. 361/2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur whereby the learned trial Court has partly allowed the petition under section 125 of CrPC filed by respondent No. 2 and awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application, i.e., 13.7.2016. 2. Applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is aged about 10 years and is residing with her mother/respondent No. 1 from the year 2013, separately from the applicant. Applicant is working as Class I Officer as shown in paragraph 17 of the impugned order dated 7.6.2018. He is earning gross salary of Rs. 92,684/- per month and net salary of Rs. 72,084/- per month. It is also not in dispute that mother of respondent No. 2 is also working in private school at Jabalpur. She is earning Rs. 36,076/- per month as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the impugned order which indicates mother of respondent No. 2 earns about half of income of the applicant. 3. Before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has only challenged that the order may be made effective from the date of order, i.e., 7.6.2018 and not from the date of filing of application i.e. 13.7.2016. It is urged that mother and father of a child is equally responsible to maintain their child. Hence, the maintenance allowance awarded by the trial Court be reduced up to Rs. 12,000/- month. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 5. In case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, the obligation of husband is on a higher pedestal when the expense of maintenance of child and wife arise. When the woman leaves her matrimonial house, situation is different. She is deprived of many comforts. 6. In case of Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with their mother. 7. When the woman leaves her matrimonial house, situation is different. She is deprived of many comforts. 6. In case of Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with their mother. 7. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7 has held as under: “8……...Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those, he is obliged under the law, and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.” 8. In the present case, the applicant is an able bodied healthy person aged about 42-45 years. He is earning sufficient salary to maintain his wife according to his status but as she is working as a teacher and has also not challenged the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, after considering the entire aspects of maintenance of his daughter, learned trial Court has rightly awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance in favour of respondent No. 2 (daughter). It would not be just and proper to reduce the aforesaid amount, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. Although, learned trial Court has failed to mention the reason for awarding the maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e., 13.7.2016, in case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & anr. v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & anr. (2015) 2 SCC 385 , the Hon’ble apex Court has held that order can be made effective from the date of application. 10. In the present case, respondent No. 2-daughter of the applicant is residing separately from her father since the year 2013. Not a single penny has been paid by applicant towards her maintenance. (2015) 2 SCC 385 , the Hon’ble apex Court has held that order can be made effective from the date of application. 10. In the present case, respondent No. 2-daughter of the applicant is residing separately from her father since the year 2013. Not a single penny has been paid by applicant towards her maintenance. Only because respondent No. 2 is living with her mother, it would not form the ground for the applicant to shirk from the responsibility of his own daughter. 11. Looking to the scenario between the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order or to change the terms and conditions of the order in favour of the applicant. 12. With the aforesaid, the criminal revision stands dismissed.