Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 676 (MP)

Sharmila Bai (Smt. ) v. Balwant Singh @ Bablu

2019-09-19

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. The applicants have filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 15/2015 (Smt. Sharmilabai and another v. Balwant Singh @ Bablu), whereby the application of the petitioner-wife under section 127 of CrPC has been partly accepted and the amount of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs. 1100/- per month to Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of applicant No.1-wife. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that initially the applicants had filed an application under section 125 of CrPC before JMFC Vidisha for granting the maintenance on the ground that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and applicant No. 2 is the daughter born out of wedlock of applicant No. 1 and respondent. The applicant No. 2 is minor and she is residing with the applicant No. 1. The respondent has harassed and tortured the applicant No. 1 due to non-fulfillment of the illegal demand of motorcycle and colour television by the respondent and when she did not fulfill the said demand, the respondent had beaten her. When the applicant No. 2 was in the womb of the applicant No. 1, at that time the respondent had kicked in the womb of the applicant No. 1 and respondent has thrown the applicants out of the house since then they are residing in the house of applicant No. 1's father. The respondent is not permitting them to live along with him and in between the respondent has got married with the daughter of Nandlal Dangi, who resides in Madankhedi, Vidisha. Applicant No. 1 is illiterate and her father is very poor while the respondent is having 100 bighas land. Since the applicants are unable to maintain themselves, hence prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay the reasonable maintenance in favour of the applicants. 3. The respondent filed the reply of the application denying all the allegations and he stated that the applicant No.1 is having source of income and she is able to maintain herself and she is living separately without sufficient reason. It was also submitted through reply that the respondent is having 25 bighas land only, out of which he has to survive himself, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application for maintenance. 4. It was also submitted through reply that the respondent is having 25 bighas land only, out of which he has to survive himself, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application for maintenance. 4. The JMFC partly allowed the application for maintenance and respondent was directed to pay Rs. 900/- to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- to applicant No. 2 vide order dated 8.12.2005 in Cri. Case No. 188/2005. 5. Against the order dated 8.12.2005 the applicants filed Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 62/2006. The Sessions Judge enhanced maintenance amount from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1100/- per month in favour of applicant No. 1. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under section 127 of CrPC before Principal Judge, Family Court, District Vidisha, taking grounds that the respondent is paying only Rs. 1600/- per month to the applicants and it is very difficult for them to maintain themselves. The respondent is having 50 bighas agricultural land and has sufficient source of income while the applicant No.1 is ailing in the legs and is unable to move from one place to another place, hence prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month to each applicant. The Family Court after considering the material available on record has directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant No. 1, but declined maintenance to applicant No. 2-daughter holding that the applicant No. 2 is major and is not entitled to maintenance. Feeling dissatisfied, the applicants have filed the present criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the maintenance awarded by the Family court is on the lower side. The respondent is having agricultural land and has sufficient source of income and looking to the present status of living particularly in view of the escalation of prices, the amount of Rs. 2000/- is so meager that no one can survive with it. Hence, the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that applicant No. 2-Mona is the daughter of respondentBalwant, aged around 21 years and she is also entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that applicant No. 2-Mona is the daughter of respondentBalwant, aged around 21 years and she is also entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Section 125(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under : "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter), who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, …....... A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct." From above, it is clear that the legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter), who has attained majority, is entitled for maintenance provided such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain himself/herself. 10. In the present case, no such reason is pointed out by the petitioners, that the petitioner No. 2-Mona, who has attained the age of majority, is suffering from any physical or mental abnormality and she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the Family Court has rightly declined maintenance in favour of petitioner No. 2-Mona. 11. As regards petitioner No. 1-Smt. Sharmila Bai is concerned, looking to the factors like high rise status, basic needs of the petitioner-wife, and sky high prices in the present scenario, it will be appropriate to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- per month to Rs. 5000/- per month. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of the petitioner No.1- Smt. Sharmila Bai. The enhanced amount shall be paid from the date of passing of this order. No Cost.