Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devesh Rai vs Sarita @ Sandhya Rai on 16 November, 2016
CRR-2149-2016
(DEVESH RAI Vs SARITA @ SANDHYA RAI)
16-11-2016
Shri Arvind Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated
20.06.2016 passed by the Court of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District- Hoshangabad in
Criminal Revision No. 149/2015, whereby the order
dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Court of JMFC, Pipariya
in M.Cr.C.No.7/2015 dismissing the application of the
respondent wife for interim maintenance under Section
125 of the Cr.P.C. was set aside and she was awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. Learned Magistrate had dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the reply of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner husband; therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no need for awarding interim maintenance.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal revision has held that aforesaid ground is not enough for denying the interim maintenance to the respondent wife. In paragraph no. 14 of the impugned order, revisionary Court has recounted the reasons for setting aside the order passed by the JMFC.
The order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge under revisionary jurisdiction has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this criminal revision on the ground that the respondent wife in her statements before the trial Court has admitted that she is serving and earns Rs.20,000/- per month; therefore she was not entitled to any amount by way of interim maintenance.
It may be noted in this regard that the statements recorded during the trial are ordinarily not to be considered for the purpose of deciding the application for interim maintenance. Such application is required to be decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and affidavits filed in support thereof. The fact that disposal of the criminal revision had taken time and meanwhile, evidence of the respondent wife in the trial has been recorded, is not a reason for considering the admission made by her in her cross-examination.
A perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits filed in support thereof reveals that earlier respondent wife was serving but no document or other material has been filed to support the fact that she is still serving. On the other hand, petitioner husband has admitted that he serves in a Multinational Company Accenture Limited and earns a salary of Rs.76,000/- per month. He has further admitted that he has been transferred to Hyderabad. He has taken a house on rent and pays Rs.20,000/- per month. He spents Rs.40,000/- per month as house-hold expenses and also pays Rs. 6,000/- to his cook. In aforesaid circumstances, the revisionary Court is right in holding that a person, who spends so lavishly on himself can easily afford to pay Rs.5,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance to his wife.
In aforesaid circumstances, the revisionary Court has committed no illegality, irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this criminal revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh