Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 177 (MP)

Sourabh Kushwaha v. Pooja Kushwaha

2021-02-18

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VIRENDER SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order dated 15.11.2019 passed in MJC No. 108/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla awarding maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 by deciding the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent No. 1 had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. with the plea that the marriage of respondent No. 1 was solemnized with the appellant on 29.04.2011 at Seoni and she was living with her in-laws and initially the treatment of the in-laws was good but later on their behaviour had changed. The appellant was working in Hindustan Copper Ltd., Malajkhand Copper Project, therefore, the respondents had started living with the appellant at Malajkhand. It was further pleaded that the respondent No. 1 had suffered abortion thrice but no steps for her treatment were taken by the appellant and ultimately the father of the respondent No. 1 had got her treated at Jabalpur and; thereafter, the respondent No. 1 had given birth to the female child, respondent No. 2 on 19.03.2013 at Seoni. After the birth of the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 had started living with her in-laws at Seoni whereas the appellant was residing at Malajkhand. The mother of the respondent No. 1 was maltreated the appellant and was asked by the appellant to take back the respondent No. 1. Consequently, the mother of the respondent No. 1 had taken the respondents to Mandla in October, 2013. After three-four months, the appellant had taken the respondents to Malajkhand. On 28.03.2015, the respondent No. 1 informed her mother that on the previous night, she was badly beaten by the appellant and appellant had also tried to strangulate her, therefore, she was very much afraid. When the parent of the respondent No. 1 reached Malajkhand, they found that the respondents were standing outside their house and the door of the house was closed and appellant had gone to the office and his parents were inside the house. When the parent of the respondent No. 1 reached Malajkhand, they found that the respondents were standing outside their house and the door of the house was closed and appellant had gone to the office and his parents were inside the house. When nobody had opened the door, the parents of the respondent No. 1 had taken the respondents to Malajkhand Police Station and reported the incident where the appellant was called and he had accepted his mistake and assured in writing that he would not repeat it in future. In these circumstance, respondent No. 1 alongwith respondent No. 2 had come to her parents house at Mandla and; thereafter, the appellant had made no efforts to take care of them. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 1 had no source of income whereas the appellant was earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and the maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 20,000/- for respondent No. 2 was paid. 3. The appellant had filed reply to the application for maintenance and had raised the plea that the respondent No. 1 is an Electronics Engineer and presently working in a Software Company at Bangalore and earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1 used to fight him on small issue and was pressurising him to shift to Bangalore and that the respondent No. 1 is in the habit of smoking, therefore, she was left at her parents place for treatment. Further plea was raised that respondent No. 1 was residing with her parent without any justifiable reason and is competent to maintain herself whereas appellant has responsibilities to take care of his ailing parents. 4. The Family Court after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead oral as well as the documentary evidence and after examining the same has found that the respondent No. 1 was living separately due to justify reason and after considering the income of the appellant, the Family Court has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court has committed an error in awarding the compensation amount without properly appreciating that the respondent No. 1 has independent source of income and that the amount which has been awarded is on the higher side. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court has committed an error in awarding the compensation amount without properly appreciating that the respondent No. 1 has independent source of income and that the amount which has been awarded is on the higher side. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that before the Family Court the statement of PW/1 Smt. Pooja Kushwaha as also PW/2 Ramesh Kushwaha, father of the respondent No. 1 was recorded to prove their case. The respondents had produced the documents Exhibit P/1 to P/18 and also Article A/1, the agreement arrived at between the parties. The appellant had also recorded his statement and proved the memo of divorce petition filed by him before the Family Court. 7. So far as the issue that the respondent No. 1 is residing separately without any justified reason, in this regard the Family Court in the order under appeal has duly and minutely examined the oral as well as the documentary evidence let by both the parties. The Article A/1 an agreement executed at Police Station, Malajkhand has duly been considered wherein the signature of the appellant has remained undisputed. In this background, the Family Court has rightly found that the respondents were residing separately on account of the harassment caused to them by the appellant. 8. So far as question of maintenance is concerned, the record reflects that the plea of the respondents, supported by the documents, that the appellant is working as Manager in the Malajkhand Copper Project of Hindustan Copper Ltd. has remained uncontroverted. The said plea is duly supported by pay-slip for the month of March, 2018. This pay-slip reveals that the monthly gross earning of the appellant is Rs. 1,14,138/- and after deduction of PPF, GPF, Income-tax, House Rent etc. the net monthly earning of the appellant is Rs. 76,668/-. The appellant had not placed on record any subsequent salary slip, therefore, the Family Court is justified in law in taking the view that the salary of the appellant must have increased and may not have decreased subsequently. 1,14,138/- and after deduction of PPF, GPF, Income-tax, House Rent etc. the net monthly earning of the appellant is Rs. 76,668/-. The appellant had not placed on record any subsequent salary slip, therefore, the Family Court is justified in law in taking the view that the salary of the appellant must have increased and may not have decreased subsequently. Though the appellant had stated that the respondent No. 1 is working in Bangalore and earning Rs. 60,000/- per month but no material has been produced by him to substantiate this plea. The Family Court has rightly noted that the admission of the appellant that his father is getting pension, therefore, he is not fully dependent upon him. In these circumstances, no error has been committed by the Family Court to reach to the conclusion that the monthly income of the appellant is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and; hence, considering the comparative financial condition of the parties, no error has been committed by the Family Court in awarding maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No. 2. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any error and no case for interference is made out. The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. No cost.