Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhani Ram Lodhi vs Smt. Lata Lodhi on 12 April, 2013
Cr.R. No.1646/2012
10.4.2013
Shri Anubhav Jain, counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has challenged the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJC No.251/2010 whereby total interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- was granted to the respondents.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the case of interim maintenance all the objections raised by the applicant were not required to be decided at this stage by the trial Court. Only the quantum of the maintenance could be challenged in the interim order. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent no.1 is wife of the applicant and two children were born due to the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.1. They are studying in various schools and therefore, maintenance computed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court appears to be appropriate. So far as the income of the applicant is concerned, it was proved prima facie by the respondents that the applicant is an Advocate who is registered in the District Bar Association, Vidisha and also had a huge land at Village Sua Khedi, Tahsil Gulabganj, District Vidisha. It is alleged that the applicant was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was a brief less Lawyer and therefore, the respondents could not prove his prima facie income to be Rs.25,000/-. However, that contention cannot be accepted at this stage. If the applicant was found to be registered as an Advocate then burden shifts upon the applicant to prove that he was a brief less Lawyer. It appears that the applicant did not give any evidence to show that he was not earning anything from his profession. He could have given a certificate from the President, District Bar Association, Vidisha that he was a brief less Lawyer or he does not have much earning from his practice. It appears that he has six years experience as an Advocate and therefore, it cannot be said that he was not capable to pay maintenance of Rs.7000/- in all.
The applicant could not prove any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal and therefore, there is no basis by which the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted.
Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina