CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1576 of 2020 v. This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed

SMT. NUTAN W/O SATISH DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT TEACHER RAJESH

1. SHARMA'S HOUSE NEAR MANAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL APANANAGAR BIAORA (MADHYA PRADESH) KU. SAMRADDHI D/O SATISH DUBEY MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN NOTHER

2. SMT. NUTAN W/O SATISH DUBEY, OCCUPATION: APANANGAR BIAORA DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. SAMARTH S/O SATISH DUBEY MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NUTAN W/O SATISH DUBEY, R/O APANANAGAR BIAORA DIST. RAJGARH Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 18-07-2023 09:37:23 - : 2 :- (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI MANURAJ SINGH, ADVOCATE) This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the .....RESPONDENTS following: ORDER

1. Petitioner/non-applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh (Biaora) in MCC No.285/2018 whereby learned Principal Judge allowed the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/applicant modifying the order dated 01.05.2015 by enhancing the maintenance amount and directed the petitioner/non-applicant to pay Rs.11,000/- (Rs.6,500/- for respondent/applicant No.2 and Rs.4,500/- for respondent/applicant No.3 respectively) per month as maintenance in place of Rs.3,000/- each to the respodnent No. 2 and 3.

2. Regarding this revision petition, it is undisputed that the marriage between the petitioner/non-applicant and respondent no.1/applicant no.1 was solemnized on 15.04.2001.

3. Succintly, the case of the petitioner/non-applicant is that just after marriage, the respondent No.1 started illtreating her mother-in-law who is a heart petient and pressuring the petitioner to live separately from his mother. Thereafter, both were started living separately leaving petitioner/non-applicant's mother alone. In spite of that, respondent no.1/applicant had not improved her behaviour. Being a government employee, The respondent no.1/applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court stating that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 18-07-2023 09:37:23 - : 3 :- petitioner/non-applicant is earning Rs.52,430/- net salary per month and as she is unable to maintain herself and her children and also prayed for maintenance.

4. In reply, the petitioner/non-applicant denied the allegations and submitted that the respondent no.1/applicant herself is earning Rs.27,056/- per month. The salary of the petitioner/non-applicant is also approximately same. Apart from that, petitioner/non-applicant has also the liability of his mother who is an heart patient. Hence, he requested for rejection of the application.

5. On due consideration of the contentions, learned Family Court vide order dated 01.05.2015 awarded the maintenance amount to the respondent No. 2 and 3 amounting Rs.3,000/- each.

6. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Rajgarh (Biaora) for enhancement of maintenance claiming that she is working only as Assistant Teacher and is having responsbility of both children. Respondent No. 2 studying in class 10th and her education expenses have been increased and respondent No. 3 being mentally retarded needs more care and proper treatment, therefore, in these circumstances, the amount of maintenance deserves to be enhanced.

7. Considering the aforesaid rival pleadings and testimony adduced before the Court, learned Family Court had modified is earlier order vide order dated 29.02.2020 passed in MCC No. 285/2018. By this order, the Court has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,500/- and from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

8. The petitioner/non-applicant in this revision petition is challenging the aforesaid order by submitting that the order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 18-07-2023 09:37:23 - : 4 :- enhancement of maintence, is incorrect, illegal and against the settled principles of law and also contrary to orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.

9. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma (2000) 4 SCC 266 and requested to reduce the maintenance amount or set aside the impugned order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court.

10. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and judgments placed before this Court, now, only point for consideration is as to whether the imugned order dated 29.02.2020 passed in MCC No. 185/2018 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court is incorrect in the eyes of law and fact.

11. In this case, the respondent No. 1/applicant Smt. Nutan deposed in her favour and petitioner Satish Dubey has deposed in his favour. After appreciating the evidence of both the parties, learned Principal Judge has enhanced the maintenance amount as aforesaid.

12. In the course of arguments and revision petition, the impugned order has been challenged on behalf of the petitioner on various grounds. It is highly remonstrated that learned Court below itself admitted that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.52,430/- and in spite of that an amount of Rs.11,000/- has been awarded as monthly maintenance to the respondent No. 2 & 3. It is also contended that learned Family Court did not consider the fact that petitioner has the liability of his mother too and the respondent No. 1 is earning her income. Learned Court below has also noticed the fact that the respondent is voluntarily not residing with the petitioner.

13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 18-07-2023 09:37:23 - : 5 :- petitioner pressed on the point of quantum of maintenance and deposed that learned trial Court has wrongly awarded maintenance on the higher side, therefore, maintenance amount be modified/reduced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,500/- and from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

14. So far as the finding as to awarding maintenance is concerned, looking to the evidence available on record, it manifestly emerges that the petitioner himself has relinquished his wife without any reason. In this regard the testimony of respondent No. 1/applicant Smt. Nutan has not been controverted by the evidence of petitioner/non-applicant Satish Dubey.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma (supra), but this case pertains to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and does not relate to maintenance provisions provided in this section. Hence, the petitioner could not be benefitted by this judgment. At this juncture, the attention has been drawn towards the judgments passed by this Court Amit Pandey vs. Manisha Pandey reported as 2020 Law Suit (M.P.) 1098. in this judgment as viewed that 25% of the net income can begiven to the respondents as maintenance.

16. The following excerpt of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under :- “The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy (AIR 2017 SC 2383), has held that 25% of the income of the husband would be just and proper and not more than that. So, apart from that when ex-parte order was passed in favour of the respondent/ wife, then learned trial Court should have awarded 25% of the net income of the petitioner/non-applicant as maintenance and not more than that. So, it is appropriate to reduce the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 18-07-2023 09:37:23 - : 6 :- awarded maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month which would be paid by the petitioner/non-applicant to the respondent/wife. The decisions in Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt. Anushree Haldar (AIR 2003 SC 3174) and Chandrakalabai Vs. Bhagwan Singh (2002 Cr.L.J. 3970) are not at all applicable in the case of petitioner/non- applicant.”

17. In view of aforesaid statements proposition and appreciation entirity, since the petitioner's income is found to be Rs.52,480/- net per month. The award of Rs.11,000/- to two children cannot be regarded as exhorbidant, hence, impugned order dated 29.02.2020 passed in MCC No. 185/2018 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court does not suffer from incorrectness, illegality or impropriety.

18. As a result thereof, this revision petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed and impugned order is hereby affirmed. Certified copy, as per Rules. Vindesh (PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 18-07-2023 09:37:23