Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 419 (MP)

Shikha Sharma v. Somit Sharma

2021-04-06

VISHAL DHAGAT

body2021
ORDER 1. Applicants have filed this criminal revision being aggrieved by order dated 22.8.2013 passed in MJC No. 128/2011, by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur (Smt. Shashikiran Dubey). 2. Application filed by applicants under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance to them was dismissed by Family Court. Family Court has given a finding that non-applicant wants to keep applicants with him. He also get himself transferred to Mumbai and arranged for residence of applicants, but applicants themselves did not went to Mumbai to live along with non-applicant. It was held that non-applicant was earning money by working in a Private Company. He was getting salary of Rs. 26,500/-. Applicant No.1 is an educated lady and she has studied MBA and from Sagar University has done Master of Journalism and Communication, therefore, presumption was drawn by Family Court that she is able to maintain herself. Family Court further held that applicant no.1 is in possession of ATM Card of SBI Bank and she has also withdrawn money from that account. Non applicant has also given interim maintenance amount to applicant No.1 till January, 2014 and even when application filed under section 125 of the CrPC was dismissed then also non-applicant continued to pay maintenance amount. In these circumstances, Family Court held that non applicant did not neglect maintenance of applicant No.1. Family Court has also given a finding that there was differences between parents of non-applicant and parents of applicants. Non-applicant has not harassed applicants. There was differences between the parents of bride and groom. On aforesaid reasoning, application filed by applicants for grant of maintenance was dismissed. 3. Perused the record of case and also examination and cross examination of witnesses. 4. From going through the deposition filed by applicants as well as non-applicant, it is clear that there is differences between applicant No.1 and non-applicant. Said differences between them is not in respect of demand of dowry or harassment. The problem between applicant No.1 and non-applicant is in respect of their egos and due to behaviour of applicant no.1 and non-applicant, they were unable to lead happy and peaceful marital life. Fact situation is that applicants No. 1 and 2 are living separately at Jabalpur. Said differences between them is not in respect of demand of dowry or harassment. The problem between applicant No.1 and non-applicant is in respect of their egos and due to behaviour of applicant no.1 and non-applicant, they were unable to lead happy and peaceful marital life. Fact situation is that applicants No. 1 and 2 are living separately at Jabalpur. On perusal of records and deposition of witnesses, it is clear that though applicant No.1 has withdrawn some amount of money by using ATM Card from account of SBI, but that does not show that non-applicant has made arrangement for permanent maintenance of applicant. There is no evidence on record to show that non applicant is regularly depositing money in applicants' account which is being withdrawn by applicant No.1 for their maintenance. In the application filed under section 125 of CrPC, applicant No.1 had made pleadings that non-applicant is not paying maintenance amount and they are unable to maintain themselves. 5. In reply to application for maintenance, non-applicant has stated that he had never neglected maintenance of applicants. He is ready to keep applicants with him. However, he has not stated that what arrangements he had made for maintenance of applicants. Though, some amount has been deposited in fixed deposit by non-applicant, but applicants had stated that said amount which has been deposited in fixed deposit is in fact the money which has been given by father of applicant Smt. Shikha Sharma to Somit Sharma. It has also been admitted by parties that amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- has been deposited in account of applicant No.1. Non-applicant has not led any evidence to show that he had made permanent arrangements for grant of maintenance to applicants. Withdrawal of money from joint account on one or two occasion is not sufficient to show that there is no neglect on the part of non-applicant in maintenance of applicants. No evidence has been adduced by non-applicant to show that applicant No.1 is earning and able to maintain herself. 6. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that applicants No.1 and 2 are unable to maintain themselves. Non-applicant is working in a private company and he has resources to maintain. Applicant No.1 has filed a suit for divorce. No evidence has been adduced by non-applicant to show that applicant No.1 is earning and able to maintain herself. 6. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that applicants No.1 and 2 are unable to maintain themselves. Non-applicant is working in a private company and he has resources to maintain. Applicant No.1 has filed a suit for divorce. There are differences between applicant No.1 and non applicant and they are unable to live together, therefore, it cannot be said that applicants without any cause are not living with non-applicant. Learned Family Court has held that there was differences between in-laws of both the parties and there was no cruelty by non-applicant. In this circumstance, maintenance can be awarded to applicants. Applicants have made allegation of harassment. From the evidence available on record, it is also evident that there is differences between in-laws and also between husband and wife. If wife shows apprehension of harassment, it is sufficient ground for her to not live with the husband. It is the responsibility of husband to protect wife from unpleasantness and her harassment by his relatives. If atmosphere of house is unpleasant due to treatment of in- laws to wife that can also be sufficient cause for refusing to live with the husband and, therefore, Family Court has committed an error in not considering harassment of applicant due to unpleasant atmosphere at her husband house and due to treatment meted out to her. Applicants have made averment that they are unable to maintain themselves and they have no income. Non-applicant has sufficient income to maintain the applicants. Husband is under obligation to give maintenance to his wife and children until they became major or until daughter is married. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, criminal revision filed by the applicants is allowed. Order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur dated 22.8.2013 in M.J.C.No. 128/2011 is set aside. Non-applicant is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicants No. 1 and 2 from the date of order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, criminal revision filed by the applicants is disposed off.