MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
JUSTICE G.S. Ahluwalia
Vikas Shukla Vs. Neetu Shukla On 2 March 2017
Law Point:
Sections 125, 397, 401 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Maintenance — Challenge against — Specific averment by applicant-husband of acquittal in offence under Section 498A, IPC — Attitude of applicant and his family members was never cruel towards respondent — Order of Revisional Court in Maintenance set aside and matter remanded back to consider effect of judgment passed by JMFC.
JUDGEMENT
This criminal revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 147/2014 by which the Revisional Court had enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant got married to the respondent about 15 years back. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent on 16.3.2012 alleging that she was married to the applicant about 11 years back as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and at the time of the marriage Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash apart from the other domestic household articles were given by her father but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by her father and they were constantly demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motorcycle. Because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the respondent was maltreated and harassed by the applicant and his family members. As the respondent could not conceive, therefore, on that issue also the applicant and his family members used to harass and scold her frequently. It was further submitted that from 23.2.2012 she is residing along with her parents and she has no independent source of income and, therefore, she prayed for a maintenance of amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the applicant.
3. The applicant by filing his reply to the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., denied the allegations made in the said application. It was further denied that the respondent was ever treated with cruelty. It was further denied that any demand of dowry was ever made at any point of time. It was further submitted that the applicant was willing to reside with the respondent and for that purposes he had also filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in which the matter was compromised and it was agreed by the respondent that she would live with the applicant. However, she left her matrimonial house on 23.2.2012 on the pretext that she is going to the market and thereafter she did not come back. When the applicant tried to contact her on mobile phone, she extended the threat that now nobody can save him. It was further submitted that the respondent is running a Beauty Parlour and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.
4. After recording the statements of the witnesses and considering the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties, the Trial Court by order dated 6.6.2014 allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent and directed that the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month by way of maintenance.
5. Being aggrieved by the amount of maintenance awarded by the Trial Magistrate, the respondent filed a criminal revision. The said criminal revision was allowed by the Revisional Court by order dated 15.12.2014 and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month.
6. Assailing the order of the Revisional Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the respondent herself had prayed for an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of maintenance and, therefore, the Revisional Court should not have travelled beyond the prayer made by the respondent and should not have enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the respondent is residing separately without any reasonable reason which is evident from the fact that before filing an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she had lodged a FIR against the applicant and his family members for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The applicant and his parents have been acquitted by the JMFC, Gwalior for offence under Section 498-A of IPC by judgment dated 24.7.2013 passed in Criminal Case No.4607/2012. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Trial Court had specifically come to a conclusion that the applicant or his family members had never treated the respondent with cruelty and in such circumstances it is prayed that as the respondent is residing separately without any reasonable reason, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance at all.
7. The respondent is also present in person. After taking instructions from the respondent, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that she was not aware of the passing of the judgment dated 24.7.2013 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.4607/2012.
8. On going through the memo of revision, this Court finds that specific averment has been made by the applicant that he and his parents have been acquitted in the offence which was registered against him under Section 498-A of IPC. If the respondent was not aware of the passing of the judgment then it is clear that the respondent must have come to know about the passing of the judgment after going through the memo of revision. However, the respondent is not in a position to make a submission that whether any appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.7.2013 or not.
9. In absence of challenge to the judgment dated 24.7.2013 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 4607/2012, there is a finding that the attitude of the applicant or his family members was never cruel towards the respondent. However, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that because of certain communication gap between the applicant and his counsel, the factum of passing of judgment in Criminal Case No.4607/2012 was not brought to the knowledge of the Revisional Court.
10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that instead of considering the judgment dated 24.7.2013 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 4607/2012, for the first time, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the Revisional Court dated 15.12.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 147/2014 and to remand the matter back to the Revisional Court to consider the effect of the judgment dated 24.7.2013 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.4607/2012.
11. The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 6.4.2017.
12. The record of the courts below be immediately send to the Revisional Court.
With aforesaid observation, the revision is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment