Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Kumar Sharma vs Smt Ekta Joshi on 3 April, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1 CRR No. 113 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 3rd OF APRIL, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 113 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ASHISH KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI OM
PRAKASH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB B-2 BANSWADA
SINTEX COLONY DABOH ROAD BANSWADA
RAJSTHAN (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAVI BALLABH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT EKTA JOSHI W/O SHRI ASHISH
KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVT JOB BANSWADA
SINTEX COLONY DABOH ROAD
1. BANSWADA RAJASTHAN AT PRESENT
CARE OF VIDHYASAGAR KULSHRESTHA
14 NEHRU COLONY MAYUR MARKET
THATIPUR MORAR GWALIOR MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU ASHVI SHARMA(MINOR) THROUGH
HER MOTHER SMT EKTA JOSHI D/O SHRI
ASHISH KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/4/2024
6:11:46 PM
2 CRR No. 113 of 2024
YEARS, R/O BANSWADA, SINTEX COLONY,
DAHOD ROAD, BANSWADA AT PRESENT
C/O VIDHYASAGAR KULSHRESTRA, 14
NEHRU COLONY, MAYUR MARKET,
THATIPUR, MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. MANAS DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for Admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
I.A. No. 1186/2024, an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. Delay of 190 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Present criminal revision is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Sec. 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C against the order passed in Case No. 206 of 2020 MJCR by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior vide order dated 31.03.2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 4/4/2024 6:11:46 PM 3 CRR No. 113 of 2024 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the respondent No.2 since the date of filing of the application.
4. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that the petitioner got married with the respondent No.1 on 08/05/2014 as per Hindu rights and rituals and out of their wedlock they blessed with a girl child/respondent No.2. After performing the marriage, the dispute arose between petitioner/husband and respondent/wife on account of which the petitioner and respondent are living separately since May, 2016. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed an application u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. which was partly allowed by learned Family Court and granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No. 2/daughter from the date of the filing of application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, present petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the evidence and facts available on Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 4/4/2024 6:11:46 PM 4 CRR No. 113 of 2024 record. It is further submitted that learned Family Court has ignored the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner is getting Rs.2,00,000/- pm while granting the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm to respondent No. 2/daughter. It is further submitted that it is settled principle that the interim maintenance should only be granted where there is no source of income. It is further argued that learned family Court has also ignored the fact that the petitioner has invested hard earned salary in betterment of his family as well as only daughter/respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1-wife is not allowing the petitioner to meet his only daughter. The amount of interim maintenance is on higher side, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and argued that the present petition is baseless and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 4/4/2024 6:11:46 PM 5 CRR No. 113 of 2024
8. It is not disputed between the parties that petitioner - Ashish Kumar Sharma is the husband of respondent No. 1- Ekta Joshi and respondent No. 2-Ashvi Sharma is daughter of petitioner. It is also not disputed that respondent No.1 is living separately along with her daughter from her husband-petitioner. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner learned Family Court has rightly observed that he is capable to maintain the respondent No.2, however, he is avoiding his responsibility and is not paying any amount for the maintenance of respondent No.2. Under these circumstances learned family Court has rightly fastened the liability on petitioner to pay the interim maintenance to respondent No. 2. So far as the amount of interim maintenance is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as social, financial and family condition of parties so also the price index now-a-days, the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court does not appear to be on higher side.
9. In the light of above discussion, no interference is required in Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 4/4/2024 6:11:46 PM 6 CRR No. 113 of 2024 impugned order passed by Family Court. Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Sunita Yadav) Judge LJ* Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 4/4/2024 6:11:46 PM