Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Priyanka vs Deepak on 31 January, 2017
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No.1189/2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No 1189/2015
Smt. Priyanka
Versus
Deepak
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.K.Saxena, learned Senior counsel with Shri Jagdish
Singh, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(31.01.2017 ) The applicant is calling in question the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind, Camp at Morena in Case No.367/2014, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, the 'CrPC') is partly allowed.
2. The facts which have led to filing of present application are that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and non-applicant on 31.01.2013 as per Hindu rituals and customs. According to the applicant, the non-applicant and his family members were persistently making demand of dowry and were ill-treating her for the said reason and when the demand was not met out, he showed door to the present applicant and since then the applicant is residing with her parents.
3. The applicant has pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself whereas the non-applicant is working as Engineer and he has monthly salary of around -( 2 )- CRR No.1189/2015 Rs.80000/-. The non-applicant has not made any arrangement for her maintenance. Accordingly, a prayer was made to direct the non-applicant to pay Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant.
4. The application filed by the applicant was partly allowed by the Court below, and despite the fact which was established by the evidence, that the non-applicant earns annual income Rs.17,43,881/- per month, the non-applicant has been directed to pay only Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. It is this order passed by the Court below, which is subject matter of challenge in this revision application.
5. The contention canvassed by the counsel for the present applicant is that the Court below has committed error in partly allowing the application. It is further contended that from the evidence available on record, it has been proved that the non-applicant has enough means to maintain her and, therefore, the amount fixed by the court below is on lower side. Hence, the prayer for enhancement of the maintenance amount has been made.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
7. Undisputedly, the applicant and non-applicant had entered into marital knot on 31.01.2013 and she was living separately since after 6 days of her marriage. The applicant claimed that she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself. The non-applicant denied the allegations in his reply and stated that the applicant is living separately with her own will and she has got share in the ancestral property, therefore she has -( 3 )- CRR No.1189/2015 sufficient means to maintain herself but the non- applicant has not adduced any evidence in this regard. Therefore, submission of the non-applicant has no force.
8. It is not disputed that the non-applicant is working as Systems Analyst in the Nucleus Software Exports Ltd. Noida, Uttar Pradesh and perusal of the payslip received from the said company reflects the income of the non-applicant to be around Rs.13,25,000/- per year. In this circumstances, the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court is meagre and not sufficient.
9. Considering the facts stated and looking to the non-applicant's salary around Rs.13,00,000/- (Rs. Thirteen Lac), per year, it can be safely said that the non-applicant is capable to pay Rs.30,000/- per month for the maintenance of the applicant. The court below erred in fixation of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, ignoring the income shown in the payslip of the non- applicant.
10. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed and it is directed that the non-applicant shall pay Rs.30,000/- per month maintenance to the applicant from the date of the order of Family Court, Bhind, Camp at Morena.
11. The revision petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information and compliance.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge AK/-