Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurabh Shrivastava vs Smt. Megha Shrivastava on 25 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16062
1 CRR-2852-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2852 of 2017
SAURABH SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
SMT. MEGHA SHRIVASTAVA
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Sharma- Advocate for respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
Reserved On- 25.07.2025
Delivered On- 01.08.2025
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri in the case No. MJCR/2900200/2015, whereby application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been allowed and awarded maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of the order.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner was married with the respondent on 29.06.2012 as per Hindu Rites and rituals at Shivpuri. Due to their wedlock, no child was born. After the marriage, petitioner and his Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/1/2025 5:50:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16062 2 CRR-2852-2017 family members started mentally and physically harassing the respondent/wife of the pretext of demand of dowry, due to which, on 09.11.2023, the petitioner left her at the house of her uncle at Bhopal. Thereafter, she came to Shivpuri and despite various efforts made by the respondent, the petitioner did not keep her with him. The respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and is dependent upon her parents. She has no source of income, whereas the petitioner is working in TATA Consultancy Service Company as a Software Engineer at Pune and is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month and therefor she has claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance.
Petitioner/husband denied all these allegations and submitted in his reply that respondent has deserted him without any sufficient reason and voluntarily started living with her parent and refused to live with him. The monthly income of the petitioner is not more than Rs.18 to 20,000/- per month. Respondent is capable to earn being highly educated. Hence the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance.
Trial court after considering the whole evidence adduced by both the parties, has allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and directed the petitioner/husband to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
Petitioner has filed criminal revision ground on the ground that impugned order is contrary to law and facts available on record. Trial court has not considered the evidence adduced by the petitioner and ignored the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/1/2025 5:50:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16062 3 CRR-2852-2017 fact that the respondent is responsible for living separately from petitioner and she herself committed cruel behaviour with petitioner and his family member. Respondent herself is having a doctorate degree, therefore, she can very well earn around Rs.40,000/- per month and she is able to earn and maintain herself. Parents and other family members are dependent upon the petitioner. The awarded maintenance amount is very high. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside.
Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the petition.
Both the parties are heard and perused the entire record with due care. Respondent/wife Smt. Megha Shrivastava (AW/1) deposed before the trial court that after the marriage with the petitioner, she started living with them, but her husband and mother and father-in-law demanded a swift car as dowry and mentally and physically harassed her for demand of dowry. Her parents tried to make them understand that they are not in a position to fulfil their demand but, the petitioner and her parents continuously harassed her for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Her mother-in-law took over her all the jewellery except a Mangalsutra and a ring. Her father anyhow gave one lac rupees to her father-in-law, but they remained unsatisfied with them and then started committing marpeet and abusing her. Her husband also attacked upon her by means of a knife, due to which she sustained injury. Petitioner left her in her father's home and despite various effort made by the respondents, the petitioner did not take her with him. Then she made a written complaint (Ex.P/1) before the S.P. Sagar and lodged an FIR (Ex.P/2) at Mahila Thana Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/1/2025 5:50:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16062 4 CRR-2852-2017 Sagar.
Petitioner/husband Gaurav Shrivastava (PW/1) categorically admits in his cross-examination that the respondent lodged an FIR under Section 498 (A) of IPC and that trial is still pending before the Court of JMFC, Raheli. Earlier, he has filed a petition for divorce, which has been decided in his favour ex-parte but later on ex-parte order has been set aside and matter is still pending before the court and presently his wife respondent is living with her parents.
On the basis of the statement of the petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner is not interested to keep her with him. Therefore, he has filed petition for divorce against her. The respondent lodged FIR against the petitioner for demand of dowry and cruelty and the matter is still sub judice before the court of JMFC. In view of the aforesaid, the reasons for living separate to the petitioner/husband appears to be just and proper, because it is quite evident that the respondent has been left by her husband/petitioner and due to which she is entitled to get the maintenance from her husband.
Apart from the above, the respondent submitted that respondent herself completed her Ph.D and she is more educated than the petitioner and therefore, being highly educated, she can easily earn more than 50,000/- per month. But, the respondent categorically admits in his cross-examination that it is true that at present his wife is earning nothing and she has no source of income although she is awarded Ph.D.. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the petitioner himself, it is proved that respondent has no source of income although she is highly educated.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/1/2025 5:50:23 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16062 5 CRR-2852-2017 Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sikha Vs. Avaneesh Mahodaya (Cr. R. No.3028/2019 order dated 10.09.2024) and in the case of Rajesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 and on the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan AIR 2015 SC 2925 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under-
18. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.
Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Shailja vs. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 has held that merely because appellant No.1 is capable of earning in not, in our opinion sufficient reasons to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
In the instant case, it is quite clear that the respondent is not having any independent source of income and the petitioner is working as a software engineer. Although he cleverly did not produce his salary slips and tried to hide his actual income before the trial court but he in his cross-examination admits that his monthly earning is about 60,000/- per month and he is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/1/2025 5:50:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16062 6 CRR-2852-2017 income tax payer. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner/husband has sufficient means to maintain her wife. Looking to the current inflation rate, living expenses and day to day needs of the respondent, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by family court is on higher side. Therefore, the reasoning given by the trial court cannot be doubted and there is no valid ground to set aside the order of maintenance or to reduce the awarded maintenance amount.
In view of the above discussion made hereinabove, no interference is called for in this revision petition. Therefore, the instant Criminal Revision being of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerning family court for information and necessary compliance.
C.c as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Vishal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 8/1/2025 5:50:23 PM