Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sonu W/O Shri Shammi Mendiratta D/O ... vs Shammi Mendiratta on 13 April, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 837 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SONU W/O SHRI SHAMMI
MENDIRATTA D/O LATE SHRI PREETAM
LAL SIDHWANI, R/O D-37, NEW
GOVINDPURI, GWALIOR (M.P.) PRESENT
TITLE - MS. SONU SIDHWANI @ MS.
SONU ARORA D/O LATE SHRI P.L. ARORA,
OCCUPATION PHD STUDENT, R/O FLAT
NO.S-3, TYPE-IV NEAR GATE NO.3, ABV-
IIITM MORENA ROAD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........PETITIONER
(SMT. SONU - PETITIONER PRESENT IN
PERSON)
AND
SHAMMI MENDIRATTA S/O SHRI
OMPRAKASH MENDIRATTA, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE, R/O.2 SAPNA MENTION,
GOVINDPURI, GWALIOR (M.P.) PRESENT
RESIDENCE 33 SECTOR, 5 PART III,
GURUGRA, MHARYANA (HARYANA)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANAND KUMAR JAISWAL -
ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 04.04.2024
Pronounced on : 13.04.2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 13-04-2024
10:18:09 AM
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Present criminal revision is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act against the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) in MJCR Case No. 321 of 2018 whereby, the application filed by petitioner for interim maintenance has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner - Smt. Sonu and respondent - Shammi Mendiratta was solemnized on 29.11.2017 as per Hindu rituals. As per allegations of petitioner, the marriage was solemnized by hiding the fact that the respondent is impotent. Petitioner was subjected to cruelty by respondent and his family members and was thrown out of their house. Therefore, she started living separately. The petitioner filed the petition u/S.12 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and the decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner by learned Family Court on 31.03.2022. The petitioner has filed an application for maintenance against the respondent which was registered as MJCR Case No.321 of 2018. During the pendency of that case, an application for interim maintenance was filed but the said application was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, the present revision is filed.
3. Petitioner argued that the order impugned is perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that after the marriage, it came to knowledge of petitioner that huge fraud was committed with her by respondent and his family members that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 13-04-2024 10:18:09 AM 3 respondent is impotent and also not mentally stable and his serious problem of shivering in his right hand is directly related to impotency. It is further argued that in order to conceal the impotency from society, her in-laws forced her to make unethical relationship with the younger brother of respondent and when petitioner opposed, they demanded dowry and ousted her from her matrimonial house just after 28 days of marriage. It is further argued that respondent and his relatives did not return streedhan of petitioner. Further argument is that it is settled principles of law that even after annulment of marriage, wife is entitled to get maintenance as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, however, learned Family Court ignored the law and passed the impugned order merely on the ground that the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been declared null and void. It is further argued that the learned Family Court has ignored the fact that respondent had concealed many details in his affidavit filed in MJCR No.321/2018 u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. ignoring the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. It is further argued that learned Family Court ignored the income of Rs.27,000/- p.m. of respondent while the petitioner is completely dependent on respondent for her livelihood. The petitioner is not pursuing her Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) anymore and not doing any job. In these circumstances, impugned order be set-aside and respondent be directed to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing the MJCR No.321/2018.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and argued that the order passed by the learned Family Court is in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 13-04-2024 10:18:09 AM 4 accordance with settled principles of law, therefore, it does not call for any interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss the present petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, consider the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is not disputed that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent. On perusal of impugned order, it is clear that the learned Family Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the marriage of petitioner with respondent since annulled by granting decree of divorce; therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. However, the above ground for rejecting the application is not in accordance with law because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. reported in [AIR 2014 SC 869] held that nullity of marriage or annulment of marriage will not be itself disentitle the lady to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is further held that in a case where marriage happened to be annulled or declared null and void due to some mischief or wrong committed by the husband, he will have to pay maintenance u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. despite declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage. The aforesaid principle has been followed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RP(FC) No.2 of 2014 (T.K. Surendran Vs. P. Najima Bindu) on 24-07-2014 and the judgment passed by High Court of Kerala upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (c) No(s).35526/2016 (T.K. Surendran Vs. P. Najima Bindu) on 21-08-2019.
7. In view of above settled principles of law while examining this case it is apparent that petitioner/wife filed the petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 13-04-2024 10:18:09 AM 5 impotency of respondent which was suppressed by him and on this ground, the decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner by learned Family Court on 31.03.2022 in HMA No.7A/2019 (Annexure P/10). In the aforesaid case, respondent did not appear before the family Court and the matter was proceeded ex-parte. The respondent did not contradict the factum of grounds taken in the decree of divorce petition. In these circumstances and in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah and T.K. Surendran (supra), this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of interim maintenance.
8. The affidavit filed by respondent and the material available on record shows that respondent is capable of maintaining the petitioner, therefore, he is responsible for payment of maintenance to the petitioner.
9. Consequently, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by Family Court dated 09.02.2024 is hereby set aside.
10. Looking to the present price index as well as the cost of daily needs and considering the financial status of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) per month from the date of filing of application until the MJCR Case No.321 of 2018 is finally decided.
11. The amount of maintenance granted to petitioner in other cases be adjusted in the amount of interim maintenance.
(SUNITA YADAV )
Vpn/- JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 13-04-2024
10:18:09 AM