Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Jain vs Shri Rajesh Jain on 18 April, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
:1: Cr.R.Nos.468-2022 & 695-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 468 of 2022
Between :-
RAJESH S/O SHRI KAMALCHAND JAIN, AGED 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O SHARP SALES, 9, SHIV VILAS PALACE, RAJWADA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. SANGEETA JAIN, W/O RAJESH JAIN, AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O C/O FATHER SHRI KAILASHCHAND
JAIN, 52, DILEEP NAGAR, BEHIND BIJASAN MANDIR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
..... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRATEEK MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 695 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. SANGEETA JAIN, W/O RAJESH JAIN, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE, R/O C/O FATHER SHRI KAILASHCHAND JAIN, 52, DILEEP
NAGAR, BEHIND BIJASAN MANDIR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATEEK MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAJESH S/O SHRI KAMALCHAND JAIN , AGED 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O SHARP SALES, 9, SHIV VILAS PALACE, RAJWADA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH) & 425,USHA NAGAR EXTENSION, NEAR SHREENATH
NAMKEEN, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH).
.........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE, ADVOCATE)
...............................................................................................................................
This Criminal Revision coming on for orders this day, the
court passed the following :
:2: Cr.R.Nos.468-2022 & 695-2022
ORDER
This order shall also govern to disposal of Criminal Revision No.695/2022 as both the revisions have arisen out of the same order dated 11.1.2022, which is interim in nature, passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.(Cri.) No. 764/2020. By the impugned order dated 11.1.2022, the learned Judge of the Family Court has directed the petitioner Rajesh Jain- husband to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the respondent- wife with effect from 2.12.2020, as an interim maintenance till the case is finally decided by the Court.
Shri Amar Singh Rathore, counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband has submitted that the learned Judge of the Family court has erred in taking into account the rental income of the go-down of the petitioner which is no more available to the petitioner although it is reflected in the income tax assessment for the year 2020-2021. Counsel has submitted that an affidavit to this effect was also filed by the petitioner-husband but it was not considered and the income of Rs.5,52,481/- has been considered as an additional rental income of the petitioner and holding that the total income would be Rs.31.36 lacs which also includes Rs.18.86 lacs towards the sale of plot, and has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Counsel has further submitted that there is material in suppression of fact by the respondent-wife which is also noted by the Family court in the impugned order. Thus,the impugned order dated 11.1.2022 deserves :3: Cr.R.Nos.468-2022 & 695-2022 to be modified as the petitioner-husband is also responsible for the expenses in relation to his son's education from his first wife, who is presently studying in Russia as also the other family members which also include his own parents and a daughter from his first wife. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and order be modified suitably.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, counsel appearing for the respondent-wife Smt. Sangeeta Jain has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial court awarding the maintenance amount as the turn over of the petitioner's business is Rs.7,57,42,884/- which is not a small amount and thus, it cannot be said that a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month would be a burden on the petitioner- husband. Counsel has also submitted that on the contrary, the impugned order is of lower side considering the aforesaid turn over of the petitioner and which is also reflected in the income tax assessment Form. Thus, it is submitted that amount awarded to the respondent-wife be suitably enhanced.
Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
From the record, it is apparent that a matrimonial dispute is going on between the parties and the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was filed by the respondent-wife on 30.11.2020, which has been decided by the learned Judge of the Family court on 11.1.2022 i.e. after a period just over a year :4: Cr.R.Nos.468-2022 & 695-2022 holding the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 31.36 lacs which also includes Rs.18.86 lacs towards the sale of plot. Thus, his annual income has been considered at Rs.12.50 lacs p.a. Out of which Rs.6.00 lacs have been directed to be paid to the respondent -wife @ Rs.50,000/- p.m. It is also apparent that the petitioner-husband had mentioned in his affidavit filed in the Family court that he is not drawing any rental income from the Tin Shed go-down in respect of which some proceedings have also been initiated by the Naib Tehsildar, Indore. It is also found that the learned Judge of the Family court has also observed that the respondent-wife, despite stating that she has an account in the H.D.F.C. Bank has not produced the documents regarding the same. Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the rental agreement executed between the respondent-wife and her father wherein an arrangement is made that she would pay for a sum of Rs.9,000/- to her own father to reside in his property. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be expedient to modify the impugned order of maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month by reducing it by a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and thus, the petitioner-husband is directed to pay the maintenance to the respondent-wife a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. Since the amount has been directed to be paid to the date of filing of this petition, it would also be expedient to direct the petitioner-husband to pay 75% of the amount due @ Rs.40000/- p.m. in five equal installments and :5: Cr.R.Nos.468-2022 & 695-2022 the petitioner shall also pay Rs.40,000/- per month to the respondent-wife till the final disposal of case by the Family Court.
The petitioner is also directed to deposit the first installment before 30.4.2022 and thereafter shall pay the installments in the first week of every month. Subject to such compliance, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner-husband.
So far as the enhancement of the maintenance amount is concerned, apparently this Court did not find force with the contention raised by the counsel for the respondent-wife and the Criminal Revision No.695/2022 filed by the respondent-wife is hereby dismissed. Learned judge of the Family Court is also requested to decide the case between the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Both the Criminal Revisions are accordingly disposed of.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) JUDGE moni Digitally signed by MONI RAJU Date: 2022.04.21 18:12:50 +05'30'