Madhya Pradesh High Court
Zakir Khan vs Smt. R3Ashida Khan on 22 June, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-677-2017
(ZAKIR KHAN Vs SMT. RASHIDA KHAN AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated:-22/06/2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Amit Lahoti and Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
I.A.No.7037/2021, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18/04/2017 passed by second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasouda District Vidisha, whereby the first revisional court reversed the order of the trial Court and granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1500/- per month each to both the children of respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized as per Muslim Rites and Rituals in the year 2005. One daughter Ekra and one son Eshan were born out of the wedlock of petitioner and respondent No.1. It is alleged that after marriage, petitioner and his family members started harassing the respondent No.1 for dowry. She was used to be kept in a locked room without food and water. She was also being abused and beaten for demand of dowry. Respondent 2 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRR-677-2017 (ZAKIR KHAN Vs SMT. RASHIDA KHAN AND OTHERS) No.1 was left alone to her parental house. The father and brother of respondent No.1 had already died and her mother is not in a position to take care of her financially. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- for herself and Rs.3000/- each for her both the children but the trial Court vide order dated 16/03/2016 rejected the application holding that no documentary evidence has been produced by respondent No.1 in support of her claim. It was also held that the respondent No.1 is living separately without any reason as per her own wish and is engaged in a job.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, respondent No.1 filed a criminal revision before the first revisional Court, who allowed the revision and awarded maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1500/- each to her both the children. Hence, this revision is preferred for setting aside the impugned order passed by first revisional Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 is living separately without any justifiable cause, therefore, trial Court had rightly rejected the application filed by respondent No.1, but the first revisonal Court has not considered this aspect and has wrongly granted interim maintenance to the respondents.
3
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRR-677-2017 (ZAKIR KHAN Vs SMT. RASHIDA KHAN AND OTHERS)
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the first revisional Court has correctly held that the wife is entitled to interim maintenance. Hence, prayed for dismissal of revision.
6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record available.
7. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the first revisional Court, it is apparent that the first revisional Court has given finding that the respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 are the children born out of wedlock of petitioner and respondent No.1. It is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and the fact that the respondent is living separately with her own wish is a matter of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. First revisional Court has also observed that denial of interim maintenance by the trial Court in favour of respondent No.1- wife is not just and proper, therefore, the order of the trial Court has been set aside. The revisional Court has also observed that there was ill-treatment by the petitioner- husband against his wife and he was not giving food and routine essentials to the respondent No.1, hence granted interim maintenance to the respondents.
8. It is an admitted position that the marriage between the 4 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CRR-677-2017 (ZAKIR KHAN Vs SMT. RASHIDA KHAN AND OTHERS) petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2005. It is settled position of law that the wife can claim interim maintenance to meet out the routine expenses. Such interim maintenance may also cover expenses incurred towards medical treatment. Whether the respondent No.1 has abandoned the house voluntarily, is a fact which has to be analysed on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my opinion, the first revisional court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
9. The present criminal revision is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge Monika MONIKA SHARMA 2021.06.24 11:15:19 +05'30'