ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, against the order dt.5.9.2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the District Judge, Bhind, in MCC No.30/2011, whereby order of interim attachment dt.30.7.2011 has been made absolute. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are as follows: (i) The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, on September 24, 2008, after issuance of certificate of incorporation by Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana. After the change of name of the company, a fresh certificate dated May 26, 2010 was issued. The company is engaged in the business of real estate development, infrastructure development, real estate promotion, engineering work, etc. Apart from doing the aforesaid work, under the Memorandum of Association and Article of Association, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the proposal to raise funds by launching the fixed deposit schemes under section 58A of the Companies Act. The company issued an advertisement in the English and local newspapers inviting investors to deposit the money in the form of fixed deposit. The company also decided to raise money by issuing 10,00,000 fully secured redeemable non-convertible debentures of Rs. 1000 each. The appellant has declared that it is neither a non-banking Banking Financial Company nor a Chit Fund Company as prescribed under the RBI Act. (ii) The State of Madhya Pradesh in order to protect the deposits made by the public in the Financial Establishment and matters connected therewith came up with the law in the name of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 (herinafter shall be referred to as the Adhiniyam 2000). (iii) Section 2 (a) of the Adhiniyam 2000 defines the 'Competent Authority' means the authority appointed under Section 5 which shall not be below the rank of Collector of the concerned District. Section 2(b) defines the "Deposit", which includes receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by any financial establishment to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or any kind. Section 2(b) defines the "Deposit", which includes receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by any financial establishment to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or any kind. Section 2 (c) defines "Financial establishment", which means an individual, an association of individuals or a firm or a company receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement but does not include a Corporation or a Co-operative Society owned or controlled by the State Government or the Central Government, or a Banking Company as defined under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 3 mandates every financial establishment to intimate the Competent Authority about its business in the area. The financial establishment shall file a copy of each of such periodical statement to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority at his discretion may also direct time to time any financial establishment to furnish statements, information or particulars etc. about the deposits received by the establishment. The violation of the aforesaid provision attracts the imprisonment which may extend to three months or fine up to the one thousand rupees or with both. Section 4 provides attachment of properties on default of return of deposits. As per sub clause (i) upon complaints received from depositors or otherwise, the Competent Authority is satisfied that any financial establishment defaults the return of deposits in cash or kind, as promised after maturity and as per clause sub clause (ii) where the Competent Authority has reason to believe that any financial establishment is acting in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors. Therefore, under Section 4, the Competent Authority may act either upon a complaint received from depositors or suo motu if he has reason to believe that any financial establishment is having an intention to defraud the depositors. Upon its satisfaction, the Competent Authority may in order to protect the interests of the depositors of such financial establishment, pass an ad-interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the financial establishment or in the name of any other person or establishment. Section 7 provides establishment of Special Court by the State Government for the purpose of disposal of cases under this Adhiniyam. Section 7 provides establishment of Special Court by the State Government for the purpose of disposal of cases under this Adhiniyam. As per sub section (2) of section 7, the Special Court shall, on an application by the Competent Authority, pass such order or issue such directions as may be necessary for the equitable distribution among the depositors of the money realized from out of the property attached. Section 8 gives power to the special Court to make the ad interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property from attachment or cancelling the ad-interim order of attachment after issuing a show cause notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to any person claiming interest in the property. (iv) In exercise of the aforesaid provisions, the Collector Bhind, being the Competent Authority, passed an interim order of interim attachment dated July 30, 2011 against as many as 11 financial institutions, in which the name of the present appellant is Sl. No. The Collector received complaints against the appellant company as well as Pariwar Dairy and Allied Ltd. Bhind, GCA Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, Swar Agrotech Housing India Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, PACL India Ltd. Bhind, KMJ Ltd. Bhind, Sabera Real Land Developers Ltd., Kim Future Brizm and Kim Infrastructure and Development Ltd. Bhind, NGG Marketing India Ltd. Bhind, KBCL India Ltd., Kalptaru Insurance Corporation Ltd. Bhind, and Udan Dairy Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, and prima facie fund that there is a violation of the provisions of Adhiniyam 2000 as no permission from the competent authority had been taken and accordingly passed an order of the attachment of the property as well as bank account. The order passed under section 4 (2) of the Adhiniyam 2000 was sent to the Special Court for confirmation under section 5 (3) of the Adhiniyam 2000. (v) The appellant appeared and submitted reply admitting launching of scheme to invite the deposits from the public. It is submitted that as per the record of the company, the respondent company has made payment to all persons who have entered into any agreement/deposit with the respondent. However, no record was produced as to how many deposits certificates were issued and money was returned. The respondent has only filed copy of public notice dt.8.8.2011, whereby the public at large was invited to collect the maturity amount. However, no record was produced as to how many deposits certificates were issued and money was returned. The respondent has only filed copy of public notice dt.8.8.2011, whereby the public at large was invited to collect the maturity amount. However, apart from that, no record has been filed to the satisfaction of the Special Court that the scheme was introduced with the permission of Collector or Competent authority. Vide order dt.5th September 2011, learned Special Court has made the order of attachment dt.30.7.2011 absolute by recording satisfaction that the appellant company is defrauding the depositors by not returning the amount. Hence this appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is clear from the order of Competent Authority that not a single investor has made a complaint against appellant company, therefore, the order of attachment of the property and bank account has wrongly been passed. It is further submitted that the appellant company is neither NBFC nor a Chit Fund Company under the provisions of the Adhiniyam 2000. Therefore, the order of attachment by the Competent Authority and the order of confirmation passed by the Special Court are beyond jurisdiction, hence, the same are liable to be set aside. HEARD 4. The aforesaid grounds raised by the appellant are not tenable. Admittedly, the appellant invited deposits from the general public and issued certificates assuring return of the amount after certain period, which comes within the definition of deposits under section 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam 2000. The appellant also comes under the definition of 'Financial Establishment' which includes an individual, an association of individuals, a firm or a company which receives deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any manner. It is mandatory for every financial establishment to inform the Competent Authority of the area where the financial establishment is doing its business. It is also mandatory for the financial establishment to file a copy of periodical statements to the Competent Authority. Therefore, there is apparent violation of these provisions by the appellant. Hence, the interim order has rightly been passed by the Collector. 5. It is also mandatory for the financial establishment to file a copy of periodical statements to the Competent Authority. Therefore, there is apparent violation of these provisions by the appellant. Hence, the interim order has rightly been passed by the Collector. 5. So far as the contention of the appellant that there is no complaint against the appellant company and therefore the competent authority has wrongly passed the order of attachment, this ground is also not tenable because under section 4(ii) of the Adhiniyam, where the competent authority has reason to believe that any financial establishment is acting in a calculated manner with intention to defraud the depositors, and if the competent authority is satisfied that such financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits, it can pass the order to protect the interests of the depositors of such financial establishment by passing an interim order of attachment. Therefore, without any complaint, if there is non-compliance with section 3 of the Adhiniyam 2000 and there are reasons to believe that the financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits to the depositors, the order of attachment can be passed. 6. The appellant, neither before the Collector nor before the Special Court nor before this Court, has filed any document to show how much money has been collected by way of deposits and that the that the same has been returned to the depositors after maturity. The balled statement made in the return is not liable to be accepted as indicating that the entire deposit has been returned. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned orders, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to disclose, after attachment of the property, whether any action has been taken by the authority to return the amount to the depositors. As per section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam 2000, the Special Court shall, on an application by the Competent Authority, pass such order or issue such directions as may be necessary for the equitable distribution among the depositors of the money realised from the property attached. In case the money realized from the sale of the property attached is not enough to cover the shortfall, the Special Court shall decide to impose such a fine to cover the shortfall as may be necessary for the equitable. In case the money realized from the sale of the property attached is not enough to cover the shortfall, the Special Court shall decide to impose such a fine to cover the shortfall as may be necessary for the equitable. Therefore, after passing the order under section 8(6) of the Adhiniyam 2000, the Special Court is required to pass an appropriate order or direction as may be necessary for the equitable distribution among the depositors of the money. In this case, there is no such material as to whether, after the order passed under section 8(6) of the Adhiniyam, 2000, the special court has issued any direction for returning the amount to the depositors out of the property attached. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Collector Bhind to take the necessary steps for returning the amount to the depositors by calling the record from the appellant company and then taking a decision for the release of the property and the bank account. The record be sent back to the concerning Court. 2024 (II) MPWN 80 Prakash Chandra Gupta, J. Mahima (Smt.) v. Ved Prakash Patel Criminal Revision No. 4380 of 2023 (I); Decided on 27.5.2024* Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- maintenance -- monthly salary of husband Rs. 29,561/- -- trial Court awarded Rs. 3,500/- per month as maintenance to wife -- unjustified -- 25% of monthly income just and proper as maintenance -- maintenance enhanced to Rs. 7000/- -- however, trial Court justified in awarding maintenance since date of filing affidavit by wife instead of date of filing maintenance application. (1970) 3 SCC 129 , (2017) 14 SCC 200 and (2021) 2 SCC 324 followed. (2024) SCC 372 (Delhi) relied on. 7000/- -- however, trial Court justified in awarding maintenance since date of filing affidavit by wife instead of date of filing maintenance application. (1970) 3 SCC 129 , (2017) 14 SCC 200 and (2021) 2 SCC 324 followed. (2024) SCC 372 (Delhi) relied on. [Paras 11 to 14 naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && èkkjk 125 && Òj.ki¨"k.k && ifr dk ekfld osru #& 29]561@& && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us iRuh d¨ Òj.ki¨"k.k d¢ :i esa #-3]500@& vfèkfuf.kZr fd, && vU;k;iw.kZ && Òj.ki¨"k.k d¢ :i esa ekfld vk; dk 25 izfr'kr U;k;laxr rFkk mfpr && Òj.ki¨"k.k Òj.ki¨"k.k cढ+kdj #& 7]000@& fd;k x;k && rFkkfi] Òj.ki¨"k.k dk vkosnu Qkby djus d¢ fnukad d¢ ctk; iRuh }kjk 'kiFki= Qkby djus d¢ fnukad ls Òj.ki¨"k.k vfèkfu.kÊr djus esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; U;k;laxrA ¼1970½ 3 ,llhlh 129] ¼2017½ 14 ,llhlh 200 rFkk ¼2021½ 2 ,llhlh 324 vuqlfjrA ¼2024½ ,llhlh 372 ¼fnYyh½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 11 ls 14 Advocate Appeared : Piyush Jain for petitioner. ORDER 1. This revision petition u/S 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by the petitioner/wife being aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2023 passed by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Indore in MJC No.1443/2021, whereby the learned trial Court has partly allowed interim maintenance application filed by the petitioner/wife and awarded her Rs.3,500/- per month from 25.4.2023. 2. It is admitted fact that the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband got married on 22.4.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is also admitted fact that the respondent/husband is working in Indian Railway as an Assistant Loco Pilot. 3. The petitioner/wife has filed an application for maintenance u/S 125 of Cr.P.C., and has also filed an application for interim maintenance stating that after marriage, she used to live with respondent/husband at her matrimonial house. Thereafter, her husband started to harass her physically and mentally, in furtherance of demand of dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and a Creta car and for other domestic reasons as well. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the respondent had deserted petitioner/wife. Since 21.6.2021, she has been living at her maternal house. On 13.10.2021, the petitioner/wife had lodged an FIR for demand of dowry against respondent/husband and his family members at P/S Mahila Thana, Indore. The petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself. While the respondent is in a government job and receives salary of Rs.70,000/- per month. Since 21.6.2021, she has been living at her maternal house. On 13.10.2021, the petitioner/wife had lodged an FIR for demand of dowry against respondent/husband and his family members at P/S Mahila Thana, Indore. The petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself. While the respondent is in a government job and receives salary of Rs.70,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent is capable to maintain the petitioner but he denied to maintain her. She sought interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and counsel’s fees Rs.25,000/- in lump sum. 4. The respondent/husband in his reply has denied all the averments made in interim maintenance application, except admitted facts and pleaded that after marriage, the behaviour of petitioner/wife was not fair with respondent/husband and his family members. She used to argue for trivial domestic causes and did not use to perform house chores. The petitioner/wife used to intimidate the respondent and his family members that she will commit suicide. The respondent/husband and his family members never demanded dowry from the petitioner/wife. She has lodged a false FIR against the respondent and his family members. The petitioner/wife herself does not want to live with the respondent/husband. The petitioner/wife on 21.6.2021, left to Indore and started to live at her maternal house. She took all her Stridhan i.e., gold and silver ornaments with herself. She did not return to the respondent/husband’s house despite of several attempts of exhorting her. The respondent did not desert her but she herself opted to not live with respondent/husband. The petitioner is a graduate lady and runs a beauty parlour shop from where she earns a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. She receives monthly Rs.30,000/- from rent. Father of the petitioner/wife also has ample sources of income. Therefore, she is capable to maintain herself. It is also submitted that Family Court, Damoh in a matter of restitution of conjugal rights has awarded her interim maintenance, wherein she is getting Rs.1,500/- per month by the respondent/husband. Respondent/husband earns Rs.29,561/- per month as salary. Therefore, application for interim maintenance is liable to be rejected. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering affidavits filed by the parties as prescribed by the apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha And Anr. Respondent/husband earns Rs.29,561/- per month as salary. Therefore, application for interim maintenance is liable to be rejected. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering affidavits filed by the parties as prescribed by the apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha And Anr. [ (2021) 2 SCC 324 ] was prima facie of the view that the petitioner/wife has no source of income therefore, she is unable to maintain herself, while the respondent/husband receives Rs.29,561/- per month as salary. Therefore, he is capable to maintain his wife. Accordingly, the learned trial Court awarded the interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner/wife as mentioned above. The learned trial Court has also directed that if the petitioner/wife is receiving maintenance in any other case, then this amount shall be adjusted with the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the last page of the impugned order the trial Court, it observed that it is apposite to provide interim maintenance from the date of filing of maintenance application but thereafter, she awarded maintenance from filing of affidavits by the petitioner i.e., 25.4.2023, which is contradictory. It is also submitted that interim maintenance should be awarded 25% of the net salary of the husband but the trial Court has awarded only Rs.3,500/- as interim maintenance. Therefore, interim maintenance should be enhanced up to Rs.30,000/- per month. He has placed reliance on the case of Rajnesh v. Neha And Anr [ (2021) 2 SCC 324 ]. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 8. The apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Anr [ (1970) 3 SCC 129 ] has opined that 25% of the net salary of the husband would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife which has been followed by the apex Court also in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary v. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy [ (2017) 14 SCC 200 ]. 9. 9. The Delhi High Court in the case of Sapna Paul v. Rohin Paul [(2024) SCC 372] has observed as under:- Keeping in view the income of the parties and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumar, (1970) 3 SCC 129 , which was reaf irmed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 , I am of the view that it would be just and proper that twenty-five percent of the net income of the Husband be granted to the Wife as interim maintenance. 10. The apex court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) has observed as under:- “109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of dif erent High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in section 125(2) of Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of application.” 11. In the instant case, it appears from affidavit filed by the respondent/husband that his monthly salary is Rs.29,561/-. He has shown his parents as dependents and there is no other liability on him. The respondent/husband has not mentioned age of his parents and their independent source of income and expenditure. It also appears from affidavit filed by petitioner/wife that she has no source of income and she also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against the respondent which is pending for disposal. 12. Considering the monthly income of the respondent, 25% of the same would be around Rs.7,400/-. But the trial without considering the ratio observed by the apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar (Supra) has awarded lesser amount for maintenance. Therefore, interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court is to be enhanced. 13. 12. Considering the monthly income of the respondent, 25% of the same would be around Rs.7,400/-. But the trial without considering the ratio observed by the apex Court in the case of Kulbhushan Kumar (Supra) has awarded lesser amount for maintenance. Therefore, interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court is to be enhanced. 13. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner had filed maintenance application in the month of November, 2021 and had filed affidavit on 25.4.2023 hence, the learned trial Court has awarded maintenance since 25.4.2023 which appears to be just and proper. 14. In the view of aforesaid discussion, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. Interim maintenance awarded by learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner/wife is enhanced to Rs.7,000/- from Rs.3,500/- per month. If the petitioner is getting maintenance in any other case, then the same shall be adjusted. Other condition of the impugned order is hereby affirmed. 15. Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of.