Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Tyagi vs Smt. Rekha Tyagi on 22 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-5892-2019
Jitendra Tyagi Vs. Smt. Rekha Tyagi and others
Gwalior, Dated : 22/04/2022
Shri B.S. Gaur, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.L. Bansal, Counsel for the respondents.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri in Case No. MJCR/06/2019, by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of CrPC has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the respondent.
The necessary facts for disposal of present revision in short are that respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC alleging that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 are the children born out of their wedlock. The applicant was in the habit of drinking and he had an illicit relationship with another woman and on enquiry by the respondent No. 1, she was badly beaten by the applicant. Respondent No. 1 was also being harassed for demand of dowry and accordingly from the year 2012, she is residing in her parental home along with respondents No. 2 and 3. It was further alleged that the applicant did not make any effort to take her back or to provide any money for their maintenance. Respondent No. 1 is a poor and illiterate lady and unable 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-5892-2019 Jitendra Tyagi Vs. Smt. Rekha Tyagi and others to maintain herself as well as her children. The applicant is in a private job and his monthly salary is Rs.20,000/- and it was prayed that maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- be granted to the respondent No. 1 as well as maintenance amount of Rs.2500/- each to the respondents No. 2 and 3.
The applicant after receiving notice appeared before the Trial Court and submitted his reply. He admitted that respondent No. 1 is his legally wedded wife and respondents No. 2 and 3 are his daughter and son, but denied the allegation of having illicit relationship with a lady or harassment on account of demand of dowry. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 under the influence of her parents, is in habit of quarreling with the applicant and his parents. Respondent No. 1 is a well educated woman and is doing a private job and she is not only capable of maintaining herself, but she is also capable of maintaining her children. She is also supporting her father and does not require any maintenance amount.
Respondents in support of their case examined respondent No. 1 as well as Jitendra Tyagi as their witness.
The Trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application and held that respondent No. 1 is residing separately because the applicant is having illicit relationship with another woman. The Trial Court also came to a conclusion that the applicant 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-5892-2019 Jitendra Tyagi Vs. Smt. Rekha Tyagi and others has failed to prove that respondent No. 1 is working in Anganwadi as well as doing a job of stitching. It was also held that the applicant had accepted that earlier he was working in Satyam Enterprises, which clearly indicates that earlier he was working in private company and, therefore, the burden is on him to prove that he has lost his job, but nothing has been placed on record. It is further held that the applicant has pleaded that his daily earning as a Taxi Driver is Rs.350/- and, accordingly, it was held that monthly income of the applicant must be Rs.15,000/- per month. It was further held that where the husband is an able-bodied person, then it is his primary responsibility to maintain his wife and minor children and, accordingly, the Trial Court has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- to each of the respondent.
Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that maintenance amount which has been awarded by the Court below is on a higher side.
However, considering the price index as well as the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3 are minor children and they require maintenance amount for making payment of their fees, meeting out the expenses on their special diet etc. as well as considering the prices of the articles of daily needs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to each of the respondent cannot be said to be on a higher side. Further, counsel for the applicant 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-5892-2019 Jitendra Tyagi Vs. Smt. Rekha Tyagi and others could not point out any material on record, from which it can be inferred that respondent No. 1 is residing separately without any reasonable reason. The applicant has not placed anything on record to suggest that he had ever tried to take his wife and children back. The Trial Court has also given a finding in paragraph 16 of the impugned order that the applicant was residing in Bhopal even prior to his marriage and at present, is residing separately all alone in Bhopal, whereas his parents are residing in Sironj.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Court below by awarding maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the respondent.
Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.04.23 17:30:02 +05'30'