Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 565 (MP)

Neetu v. Lokesh

2019-08-02

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife under section 482 of CrCP challenging the order dated 7.12.2018 passed by ASJ, Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur in Criminal Revision No. 29/2018 whereby confirming the order passed by JMFC, Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur in misc. criminal case No. 2/2016 on 5.1.2018 whereby dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner-wife under section 125 of CrPC for maintenance. 2. Facts in brief are that petitioner and respondent were married on 28.3.2015. After some time, family members of the respondent extending cruelty and harassment towards the petitioner by using filthily language. Petitioner left the respondent and came back to her parental house. Thereafter, she filed an application under section 125 of CrPC claiming the maintenance for herself. The respondent has filed the reply to the said application denying the allegations made therein. Respondent prays for dismissal of the application filed under section 125 of CrPC as she is not willing and ready to reside with him. 3. After hearing both the parties and after appreciating the evidence produced by both the parties on record, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner for maintenance, which was upheld by the appellate Court. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below committed grave error in dismissing the matter without recording any cogent reason. He also submits that the petitioner is living with his family and she has to manage the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, orders impugned be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the orders passed by the Courts below and submits that no interference is required and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 7. In the present case, the petitioner is living with her parents. The Courts below have found that the petitioner is not willing to live with the respondent and on that very ground has dismissed the application for maintenance. According to the standards which are prevailing in the Society, it appears that the both the Courts below committed error in dismissed the application of the petitioner. 8. The Courts below have found that the petitioner is not willing to live with the respondent and on that very ground has dismissed the application for maintenance. According to the standards which are prevailing in the Society, it appears that the both the Courts below committed error in dismissed the application of the petitioner. 8. Considering the allegations and counter allegations of both the parties and the evidence produced by them, it appears that maintenance should be awarded to the petitioner for her livelihood. 9. In this condition, the Court has to keep in mind the object of the provision of section 125 of CrPC while determining the quantum. The object of section 125 of CrPC is amelioration of financial status of wife so that she can sustain herself. Sustenance cannot mean mere survival. Maintenance has therefore, to be so fixed that she is entitled to lead a life in similar manner as she would have lived in house of her husband. While determining the quantum of maintenance allowance, it can never be forgotten that inherent and fundamental principle behind section 125 of CrPC is to support the wife when compelled to leave her matrimonial home therefore, there has to be some acceptable arrangement so that she can sustain herself. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. section 125 of CrPC is a mode of speedy justice and is specially engaged to protect woman and children from penury. 10. Considering the present scenario, standard of living of both the parties, their family and financial background, work of respondent-husband and other facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that both the Courts below committed error in dismissed the case. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that orders of the both the Courts below deserves to be set-aside. Order dated 7.12.2018 passed by ASJ, Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur in Criminal Revision No. 29/2018 whereby confirming the order passed by JMFC, Bhanpura, District-Mandsaur in misc. criminal case No. 2/2016 on 5.1.2018 whereby dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner-wife under section 125 of CrPC for maintenance are hereby set-aside. Thus, the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court for determining the amount of maintenance to be paid to the petitioner-wife. 11. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of finally.