Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 584 (MP)

Bharti (Smt. ) v. Mukesh

2019-08-16

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER This order seeks to dispose of criminal revision filed by the applicants under section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 wherein the maintenance amount awarded in favour of the applicants by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 67/2014 vide order dated 8.2.2017 has been sought to be increased from Rs. 4000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/-per month. 1. In the original application filed by the applicants, it had been stated that applicant No. 1-Smt.Bharti had got married to non-applicant-Mukesh on 22.1.1999. Two children were born out of this union and these are applicant No. 2-Rajat and applicant No. 3-Yashasvi who are aged about thirteen years and two and a half years respectively. After the marriage, the applicant No. 1 started to live as a wife of non-applicant at Khandwa (MP), but the non-applicant started harassing the applicant No. 1 on trivial issues. The applicant No. 1, however, continued to remain with non-applicant hoping that things would turn out for better. In the year 2006, the applicant No.1 was assaulted by the non-applicant. Thereafter, the applicant No. 1 called her parents and the non-applicant and his relatives assured that no untoward incident would happen in future. 2. In view of this assurance, the applicant No. 1 continued to stay with the non-applicant, however, there was no change in the behaviour of the non-applicant and he started threatening that the parents of the applicants would be implicated in the false case. The non-applicant demanded dowry and assaulted the applicant No. 1 consequent to which case under sections 498A, 506 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was instituted by the applicants against the non-applicant. The applicant submitted that "Stridhan" given was also kept by him and due to continuous torture, the applicants are staying in parental house and are unable to maintain themselves. It is stated that non-applicant is a broker at Indore and used to earn Rs. 50,000/- per month. This apart, he has diversified the business interests from which he earns in all Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, whereas the applicant does not work and is unable to maintain herself and seeks Rs. 14,000/-per month. 3. The non-applicant had denied the allegations and submits that the applicant is a "Tutor" and also does embroidery work and also works in a "Sari" Shop and earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, whereas the applicant does not work and is unable to maintain herself and seeks Rs. 14,000/-per month. 3. The non-applicant had denied the allegations and submits that the applicant is a "Tutor" and also does embroidery work and also works in a "Sari" Shop and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month, whereas the non-applicant merely works as a "Driver" and earns Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Hence, he is not in a position to give maintenance amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month to the applicants. 4. The trial Court after consideration of evidence adduced by parties vide order dated 8.2.2017 has awarded Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance amount to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1000/- each to both the kids i.e. applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3. 5. Aggrieved, this revision application has been filed in which it has been mentioned that non-applicant has admitted in his reply that he is posted as 'Driver' in Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and award of Rs. 4000/- per month for all the three applicants is extremely meagre and enhancement of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been sought by the applicants. 6. Notice to non-applicant has been sent which was received by the non-applicant on 28.3.2019 but however he remained absent and therefore this revision application is considered ex-parte. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has made his submissions and brought to Court's attention, the evidence which is recorded in the original case in MJC No. 67/2014. The applicant No. 1-Smt. Bharti (Witness No. 1) states that she was subjected to torture on account of demand of dowry by the non-applicant resulting in fracture of two of her fingers and also fracture in her ribs. She was turned out from the non-applicant's house and she resides with her parents. Thereafter report in the police station was lodged which is Exhibit-P-5 and this report is dated 23.3.2013. In cross-examination, she admits that her husband gives her Rs. 3500/- per month, however, admits that in her FIR she did not record that her husband had caused fracture to her fingers, although there is averments regarding assault by the non-applicant-Mukesh to the applicant No. 1-Smt.Bharti. 8. In cross-examination, she admits that her husband gives her Rs. 3500/- per month, however, admits that in her FIR she did not record that her husband had caused fracture to her fingers, although there is averments regarding assault by the non-applicant-Mukesh to the applicant No. 1-Smt.Bharti. 8. The non-applicant on the other hand states that he never indulged in cruelty and the applicant No.1 used to nurse suspicion against him that he goes to other women and on ground he used to torture her which was not true. He denies that he had assaulted the applicant No. 1 for dowry and he had turned out her from his house. 9. Considered. 10. Looking to the FIR lodged by the applicants against the non-applicant, prima-facie it appears that the applicant No. 1 was subjected to physical abuse by the non-applicant. The applicant No.1 has not been given any suggestion in cross-examination that she used to suspect the character of non-applicant. It is thus found proved that the non-applicant had neglected his wife and children. The applicant No. 1 has stated that she is unable to maintain herself whereas the nonapplicant submits that she earns as a Tutor, does Embroidery work and also works in a Sari shop and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month which has been denied by the applicant in her cross-examination. There is no material to support the defence of non-applicant that the applicant is able to sustain herself. It is the pious duty of non-applicant to maintain his wife and children. 11. As far as the earning of non-applicant is concerned, the applicant states that non-applicant used to earn Rs. 1.00 lac to 1.5 lacs per month through property and brokerage business. However, in cross-examination, she admits that she has not submitted any document regarding the earning of non-applicant. 12. The non-applicant-Mukesh, on the other hand, submits that he works as a Driver in MP Tourism Development Corporation and earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He has filed the salary certificate which is Exhibit-D-1 and says that he used to earn only Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 3250/- per month. He denies that he works as a Broker and has an STD shop. He denies in cross-examination that he does booking of vehicles in Rajat Travellers and that he works in Reliance Courier and Telecom Centre. He admits that he is a Driver in MP Tourism Development Corporation. 3000/- to Rs. 3250/- per month. He denies that he works as a Broker and has an STD shop. He denies in cross-examination that he does booking of vehicles in Rajat Travellers and that he works in Reliance Courier and Telecom Centre. He admits that he is a Driver in MP Tourism Development Corporation. He denies that he owns a Marshall Jeep (vehicle) which he has given in the Forest Department. Exhibit-D-1 is the salary certificate which is dated 12.3.2015 issued from the Office of Naib Tahsildar, Khandwa (MP) showing the income of non-applicant-Mukesh to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum. A perusal of Exhibit-P-4 which is the reply to the notice given by the non-applicant in which it has been stated that non-applicant earns Rs. 150/- per day and on Sundays he does not get any salary. 13. It is thus proved that non-applicant works in MP Tourism Development Corporation as Driver and it cannot be expected that he used to earn barely Rs. 3000/- to 3250/- per month because such meagre salary is not given in any of the Government Department. It can safely be assumed that nonapplicant earns no less than Rs. 15000/- per month and that the maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- is too meagre in the present circumstances for three applicants. There is no evidence to support the non-applicant's contention that the applicant earns through teaching and embroidery work. Consequently, the maintenance amount of applicant No. 1 deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 2000/- per month to Rs. 4000/- per month and that for the applicants No. 2 and 3, Rs. 1000/- per month to Rs. 2000/- per month for each of them. The applicant No. 1 has furnished the fee structure of her son-Rajat which is Exhibit-P-6 showing him to be studying in Central School at Ratlam and the document placed on record though not exhibited shows two months fees as Rs. 2900/-. 14. In view of this document, the enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- per month to Rs. 8000/- per month is most appropriate and hence this revision stands partially allowed in above terms. 15. This award shall be enforceable from the date of pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court dated 8.2.2017. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with record for due compliance.