Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Gore vs Smt. Deepa Gore(Deshmukh) on 13 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C No.2236/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T JA B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 2236 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SACHIN GORE S/O SHRI SHYAMRAO GORE, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE,
HIGH COURT JABALPUR R/O 1171-A,
VIVEKANAND WARD, SAI PARISHAR, DAYA
NAGAR, RANITAL, JABALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH- ADVOCATE )
AND
SMT. DEEPA GORE (DESHMUKH) W/O SHRI
SACHIN GORE D/O SHRI PYARELAL DESHMUKH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O WARD NO 40, GALI
NO.5, CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara, District Chhindwara (M.P.) in MJCR No.212/2022 by which Rs.10,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that aforesaid order is an 2 M.Cr.C No.2236/2024 ex parte order. Applicant is registered as an Advocate. However, since 20.10.2019, he is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and in spite of regular treatment there are relapses because of poor compliance. It is submitted that because of his disease he is not in a position to practise as an Advocate and all the time he is staying back in his house.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present application in short are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that she got married to applicant on 24.06.2021 at Rajnagar, District Chhindwara as per Hindu rights and rituals. Immediately after the marriage, behaviour of applicant was not good and cordial towards respondent and applicant as well as her in-laws started harassing her physically and mentally on account of less dowry. Although father of respondent tried to convince that father of respondent is a retired person and his pension is the only source of his livelihood and he cannot give Rs.5 Lakh in cash, however, behaviour of applicant did not improve and he continued to harass her physically and mentally. On 04.08.2021, he brought her to Chhindwara and left her at the bus stand of Chhindwara with a clear threat that unless and until she brings an amount of Rs.5 Lakh he would not allow her to stay in her matrimonial house. Accordingly, it was alleged that applicant has not taken care of respondent and has not provided means for her livelihood. Applicant is an Advocate practising in High Court and is earning Rs.1 Lakh per month. He has a personal house situated in Dayanagar, Ranital District Jabalpur and accordingly a compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month was prayed.
4. The counsel for applicant appeared before Family Court on 06.12.2022 and thereafter he was proceeded ex parte on 03.03.2023 as 3 M.Cr.C No.2236/2024 applicant as well as his counsel had stopped appearing. Thereafter, on 03.05.2023, father of applicant moved an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, which was rejected by order dated 04.07.2023. Applicant did not file any reply to application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. also.
5. Challenging the order passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent had prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and the same amount has been awarded by the trial Court, which clearly shows non-application of mind. It is further submitted that applicant is mentally retarded person suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and in spite of better treatment there are relapses because of poor compliance and accordingly, it is submitted that since applicant is not an able bodied person and is not in practise on account of his mental disorder, the trial Court committed an error by awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. However, during the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that applicant got married to respondent on 24.06.2021.
6. Heard the learned counsel for applicant.
7. According to applicant, he is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and was admitted to Asha Hospital on 29.10.2019 and was discharged on 15.11.2019. Applicant has not filed the bed head ticket of the Hospital and has also not filed any prescription as well as receipt of purchase of medicines to show that he had taken any treatment. He has filed the copy of certificate issued by Dr. O.Jyothi in support of his mental sickness. Dr. O.Jyothi has given a certificate that in spite of better treatment, there are relapses because of poor compliance. If the certificate issued by Dr. O.Jyothi is considered, then 4 M.Cr.C No.2236/2024 it is clear that applicant was discharged on 15.11.2019 and there is nothing in the certificate to show that thereafter applicant was ever treated by Asha Hospital, Hyderabad. When the Hospital had never treated the applicant after 15.11.2019, then how a certificate can be issued to the effect that in spite of regular follow-up and better treatment, there are relapses because of poor compliance. Thus, prima facie, this certificate appears to be false and concocted. Even otherwise, if applicant is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia, then why he married the respondent on 24.06.2021, which clearly shows that applicant must have kept the respondent and her family members in dark.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. This Court has already come to a conclusion that medical certificate relied upon by applicant in this application appears to be false and fabricated coupled with the fact that when applicant was served with the notice and he had entered his appearance through his counsel, then why he did not file his reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. specifically when not only the applicant himself is a practising Advocate but even father of applicant is also a practising Advocate.
10. So far as the ascertainment of quantum of maintenance is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, has elaborately dealt with that aspect.
11. Considering the price index as well as cost of living, this Court is of considered opinion that amount of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by trial Court cannot be said to be on a higher side. The submission made by counsel for applicant that trial Court should not have awarded the amount, which was claimed by respondent is concerned, the same is 5 M.Cr.C No.2236/2024 misconceived. While deciding the quantum of maintenance, the Court is only required to consider that what amount should be legitimate. If respondent had claimed legitimate amount, then no mistake was committed by the trial Court by awarding the said amount.
12. As no case is made out warranting interference, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE SR* Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2024.02.16 18:20:18 +05'30'