Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alavya Turakhiya vs Shreya on 11 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 11 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2329 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ALAVYA TURAKHIYA S/O SHRI ROHIT TURAKHIYA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB R/O 328,
SCHEME NO. 75-C VIJAY NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TOUSIF WARSI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHREYA W/O ALAVYA TURAKHIYA, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O B.M. AGENCY
7TH LANE WARD NO. 31 SARAFA BAZAR ITARSI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 988 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHREYA W/O SHRI ALAVYA TURKHIYA, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE B.M. AGENCY 7TH
LANE WARD NO. 31 SARAFA BAZAR, ITARSI AND
ANOTHER ADD. 328 A/D SCHEME NO. 74-C VIJAY
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND
ALAVYA TURKHIYA S/O SHRI ROHIT, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB 328 SCH. NO. 74 C VIJAY
NAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 13-03-2024
10:57:32
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TOUSIF WARSI, ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
M.P. No.2329 of 2023 The petitioner / husband has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2023 passed in HMA Case No.1649/2018, whereby an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application along with litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.1,500/- per day appearance, to the respondents / wife.
02. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 17.02.2017 and they are living separately. The petitioner instituted a case under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court.
03. The respondent lodged an F.I.R. under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the pending proceedings before the Family Court, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance.
04. After considering the material that came on record, the learned Family Court has passed the order of maintenance as stated above.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount is on higher side and the same has been ascertained without examining the income tax return and income of the petitioner. He is not a permanent member of any club, however, he using the facility of club as a dependent member.
06. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the aforesaid prayer by Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 13-03-2024 10:57:32 3 submitting that the petitioner has sufficient means of income and property to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent is also entitled to live with the same standard, equivalent to the petitioner.
07. Looking to the present prize intact and inflation, Rs.20,000/- for maintenance of respondent, who is residing in Itarsi, especially with no other source of income cannot be said to an higher side. The Family Court has held that admittedly, the petitioner is travelling abroad and dependent member of Yashwant Club, one Wagon R car is in his name and he is the partner of Turakhiya Trader, therefore, maintenance of Rs.20,000/- cannot be said to be on higher side.
08. So far as M.P. No.988 of 2023 is concerned, the same is filed against the order dated 27.01.2023, whereby the application filed under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the respondent / husband has been allowed. By the aforesaid application, the respondent has only sought permission to take the CD and transcript of conversation on record. At this stage, the Court has taken the same on record and no finding has been recorded in respect of admissibility of the said evidence, therefore, there is no reason to challenge the same.
09. In view of the above, both the Miscellaneous Petitions stand dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected petition also.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 13-03-2024 10:57:32