Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 504 (MP)

Vikas Singhatia v. Priti

2019-07-11

S.K.AWASTHI

body2019
ORDER 1. The applicant/husband preferred this revision petition under section 397/401 of the CrPC against order dated 22.3.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Criminal MJC No. 743/2012, whereby the application filed by the non-applicant No. 1 under section 127 of the CrPC has been partly allowed and maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month for non-applicant No. 1 and from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month with respect to non-applicant No. 2. 2. The facts adjudicated the present petition is that non-applicant No. 1 filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance before Family Court, Indore and the same was allowed vide order dated 1.10.2009 in Criminal MJC No. 379/2009, the applicant-Vikas was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 respectively. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present applicant has preferred Criminal Revision No. 1317/2009 before this Court, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 26.8.2011. Thereafter, non-applicant No. 1 preferred an application under section 127 of the CrPC before the Family Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and the same was allowed by impugned order dated 22.3.2016 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per month to non-applicants No. 1 and 2 respectively instead of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month. This order is a subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant No. 1 is educated lady and she has done M.SC., therefore, she is capable for maintaining herself. It is also submitted that when the marriage of applicant was solemnized with non-applicant No. 1 at that time applicant was working in the Company, however, he was pressurized by the Company for working outside the country or left the job. He refused the proposal and resigned from the aforesaid company. At present, the applicant is not having any source of income and he is unemployed. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 1 has exonerated the income of the applicant by making false documents in order to get enhanced maintenance amount. The family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed error in enhancing the maintenance amount. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for setting aside of the impugned order. 4. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 1 has exonerated the income of the applicant by making false documents in order to get enhanced maintenance amount. The family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed error in enhancing the maintenance amount. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for setting aside of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants supported the findings given the Family Court and prays for rejection of the revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant is having degree of B.E. and he was working as Assistant Engineer in Telecommunication Company. The applicant claims that he has resigned from the said post and now at present he is unemployed, however, he has not produced any reliable documentary evidence to established the aforesaid fact. Although, applicant has filed Exhibits D-1, D-2, D-41, D-42 and D-48 to substantiate the aforesaid fact but these documents are computer generated, therefore, the Family Court has not relied on those documents. The family Court was of the view that the applicant has not filed any concrete evidence to show that he is no more in the service of the said Company, therefore, it cannot be said that now the applicant is unemployed. 7. It is not disputed that non-applicant No. 1 is wife of the applicant and she is unable to maintained herself and non-applicant No. 2, who is the son born out from the wedlock of applicant and non-applicant No. 1. The applicant is well educated and working as engineer, therefore, he is having sufficient means to pay the enhanced maintenance amount to the non-applicants. 8. Looking to the inflation in the value of commodities, living standard of the parties and financial status of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant has enough income to pay the enhanced maintenance amount to the non-applicants. 9. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the enhanced maintenance amount granted to the non-applicants is not appears to be excessive, therefore, the maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court is just and proper. Hence, no interference is warranted. Resultantly, being devoid of any merit this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 9. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the enhanced maintenance amount granted to the non-applicants is not appears to be excessive, therefore, the maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court is just and proper. Hence, no interference is warranted. Resultantly, being devoid of any merit this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order along with the record be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.