Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nurul Haq vs Nazma Begum Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 26 March, 2014
CRR. No.418/2007
24.3.2014
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri
Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3.
Shri G.S. Thakur, P.L for the respondent no.4/State.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.207/2006 whereby the revision filed by the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 was accepted and a maintenance of Rs.500, Rs.350/- and Rs.350/- per month was given to the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The facts of the case in short are that the respondents have moved an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C before the trial Court that the applicant had illicit relation with other woman and therefore, the respondent no.1 was ousted from the house and no maintenance was given to the respondents. It was also pleaded that the applicant had an income of Rs.50,000/-.
In reply the applicant denied his income and he has specifically stated that he divorced the respondent no.1 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as meher.
After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the learned JMFC dismissed the maintenance application for the respondent no.1. She was granted a maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month upto the period of iddat and remaining respondents were granted a maintenance of Rs.200/- per month each. The learned Sessions Judge modified the order.
After considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, it would be apparent that the applicant has stated that he gave divorce to his wife but, he could not prove the execution of the service of the divorce notice to the respondent no.1. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the proposition in para 10 of its order and found that the applicant could not prove any divorce given to the respondent no.1. Under such circumstances, the applicant was responsible for the maintenance of the respondents. Looking to his income the maintenance amount granted by the revisionary Court appears to be appropriate. It cannot be said that respondents have been granted n excessive maintenance.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant Nurul Haq against the impugned order is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with the record for information.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina