Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rakhi Gupta vs Amit Kumar Gupta on 12 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MP-648-2018
(SMT. RAKHI GUPTA Vs AMIT KUMAR GUPTA)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-02-2018
Shri Anil Kumar Pare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Katni in MJC No.07/2016.
sh The respondent husband filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the e Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court Katni on the basis of an ad agreement dated 18.05.2007. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has Pr filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for her maintenance.
a hy The Family Court passed an order dated 05.08.2011 thereby granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month and litigation expenses Rs.2,000/-
ad and Rs.3,000/- towards journey to the petitioner. Against the said order, M respondent had filed a revision number 353/2011 before this Court. The of said revision was dismissed as not pressed on 28.04.2015, thereafter a suit filed by the respondent husband for divorce was dismissed on default. The rt petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for recovery of maintenance ou amount of Rs.71,600/- as per order dated 05.08.2011 i.e. from 05.08.2011 C to 19.06.2015. The respondent has filed reply to the said application and stated that he has already paid the amount as mentioned in the agreement h ig dated 18.05.2013. The Family Court has passed an order dated 17.12.2016 stating that whether the petitioner/applicant had received an amount of H Rs.1,90,000/- as one time maintenance amount from the respondent and has executed an agreement in this regard and if it is yes then what will be the legal effect and this is the subject of enquiry. The Court directed both the parties to produce the evidence in that regard. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by the Family Court dated 17.12.2016 is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the Family Court has erred in wrongly appreciated the unregistered agreement dated 18.05.2007. He further submits that the revision preferred by the respondent is already dismissed by this Court. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Family Court be set aside. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. From perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Family Court, it reveals that the petitioner has filed an application for recovery of amount of maintenance. In reply to the said application the respondent has stated that in light of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has already received an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and, therefore, the execution case is not maintainable. Thus, the respondent has denied the entitlement of the petitioner for getting the maintenance and, therefore, the Family Court has directed both the parties to produce the evidence whether an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- has been received by the petitioner or not and whether an agreement has been executed between the parties.
sh Thus, I do not find any error committed by the Family Court in passing the e ad impugned order and learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdiction or material irregularities committed by the Family Court in Pr passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed a without any order as to costs.
hy ad (MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE M of rt Tabish ou Digitally signed by C MOHAMMAD TABISH KHAN h Date: 2018.02.15 17:32:31 ig +05'30' H