Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayush Jain vs Kriti Jain on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
1 CRR-5059-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 25th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5059 of 2023
AYUSH JAIN
Versus
KRITI JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Upadhyay - Senior Advocate with Shri Jagveer Singh -
Advocate for the applicant/revisionist.
Shri Somit Raizada - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this case is finally
heard at motion hearing stage.
2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
the Cr.P.C./under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred being aggrieved with the order
dated 01.08.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Damoh (M.P.) in
M.J.C.R. No.52/2022.
3. In this case, the wife shall be addressed as an applicant and husband
shall be addressed as a respondent. As they are in the original before the trial
court.
4. In nutshell, the case before the trial Court was that the marriage of
the parties was solemnised on 13.07.2021 in Sagar and first time, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
2 CRR-5059-2023
applicant-wife visited her matrimonial home and resided there for 6-7 days
and on second time, she visited her matrimonial house. As per the allegation,
the husband and his family were harassing the applicant-wife to fulfil the
demand of dowry. She called her father and told him the whole story. Her
parents visited her matrimonial house. On request, the husband and his
family members has stated that they will not harass her but after 3-4 days,
she again was harassed and thrown out from her matrimonial house.
Residing some days in parental house, she again visited her matrimonial
house but the husband and his family members did not allow her to reside in
the matrimonial house. Hence, she returned to her parental house. She filed a
complaint before the S.P. Damoh. Counseling was made in Mahila Police
Station Damoh and the matter could not be solved by the counseling. Second
application was filed on 13.12.2021. The case under Section 498-A read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Probation Act was registered
against the husband and his family members. The applicant has stated that
the applicant is not able to maintain herself and filed the application for the
maintenance.
5. The respondent-husband in his reply has admitted the fact that the
original applicant is legally wedded wife but has stated that the applicant-
wife herself is not ready to live in matrimonial house. Her conduct with his
family members is not proper. The husband is unemployed and he has no
source of income to pay the maintenance whereas the applicant-wife is well
educated and by teaching in coaching institute, she earns handsome amount.
Hence, the respondent-husband prayed that the application be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
3 CRR-5059-2023
6. Before the trial Court, the applicant-wife examined herself and her
parents (AW-2 & AW-3) and exhibited first information report whereas the
respondent has not examined any witness and he was proceeded ex-parte at
evidence stage.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant-husband has submitted that the
trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and granted
excessive maintenance amount in favour of respondent-wife. The
respondent-wife is living separate without any sufficient reasons. Though,
before the family Court, the applicant failed to prove that the revisionist is
having sufficient means to maintain his wife and there is liability of taking
care of old age parents and unmarried sister but not considered this material
fact that the maintenance was ordered on the oral evidence. Hence, the order
could not be maintained in the eyes of law. He, relying the judgment in the
case of Shikha v. Avaneesh Mahodaya, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5791
particularly in paragraph no.14 of the judgment, has submitted that well
qualified spouse should not be left idle or to remain idle basing on their
maintenance amount received from husband. Nevertheless, Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people
waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse
and also submitted that the wife is well-educated and she can also earn.
Hence, the amount of maintenance order against the revisionist is on higher
side and the order be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the
respondent-wife is residing separate from her husband as the husband was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
4 CRR-5059-2023
treating her with cruelty. She has filed a criminal case against her husband
that application filed before Superintendent of Police is Ex.P-1 and FIR is
Ex.P-2. The statements of respondent are supported by her parents and the
applicant has not examined himself before the Court. The applicant has also
proved that the applicant has two hardware shops which he is operating and
he has let two shops on rent. He has 20 acre agricultural land and a marriage
garden. Thus, in month he earns about 3-4 lack rupees. The Family Court has
taken into consideration the status of parties as ordered maintenance of
Rs.25,000/-. Hence, no interference is called for.
9. Heard the parties and perused the record.
10. In this case, it is admitted fact that the respondent is legally wedded
wife of the applicant-revisionist. It is also admitted that she is residing
separate from her husband in her parental home. The husband has not tried to
keep her alongwith him and in her statement before the Court, wife (PW-1)
has clearly stated that when she first time visited her matrimonial house, they
kept her properly. Second time, the applicant-husband and his family
members were complaining that proper dowry has not given and started
demanding dowry. When she returned to her parental home. She informed
her parents and third time she visited her matrimonial home, she was thrown
out of matrimonial home after assaulting her. She called her parents and
alongwith them she returned to her parental home. On 03.09.2021 since then
she is residing in parental home. On 27.11.2021, she again visited the
parental home with her father and her aunt (mausi) and requested to keep her
alongwith them but they were not ready to permit her to live in her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
5 CRR-5059-2023
matrimonial house. Hence, she returned and filed a complaint before
Superintendent of Police, Damoh that is Ex.P-1.
11. In this complaint also, she has also clearly stated that her husband
and his family members are harassing her for dowry and on 03.09.2021, they
have thrown her from matrimonial house after assaulting. She has also
reported the fact that on 27.11.2021, she went to matrimonial home but his
husband and in-laws were not ready to keep her. On these facts, the report
was lodged on 13.12.2021 against the husband and in-laws including sister-
in-law.
12. The statements of the wife are supported by her mother Sudha Jain
(PW-2). The revisionist-husband has not adduced any evidence to support his
reply that the wife was not behaving proper with family members and she is a
lady of bad manners.
13. The trial Court has also noted down that on 03.12.2021, the parties
were called for counseling in which the husband has not participated and on
08.12.2021 during the counseling, the husband refused to keep his wife
alongwith him. Thus, it is clear that the respondent-wife is living separate
without sufficient reasons.
14. On the point of earning, the revisionist has stated that she is well-
educated and by teaching in coaching institute, she earns sufficient amount
of money but to prove this fact, he has not adduced any evidence or brought
any document on record to contradict the wife in her statements that she
earns handsome amount and by that, she can maintain herself.
15. Furthermore, in her statements, she has clearly stated that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
6 CRR-5059-2023
applicant belongs to a business family and he is running shops of
hardware/pipe. He has rented two shops and he has agricultural land and a
plot for which he let for marriage ceremonies.
16. Looking to these facts that the wife is educated lady and both
belong to the economically middle class and necessity of the life taking into
consideration, the inflation in handsome amount is required but it is also
admitted the fact that by the documentary evidence, the wife failed to
demonstrate that he has such properties as stated by her. But, looking to the
fact that the husband is a young person and he has no physical or mental
disability. Taking into consideration that the wife is residing separately in
parental house and there is no necessity at present for separate residential
house and she is jointly living with her parents. Rs.25,000/- per month
appears to be higher side.
17. Hence, the maintenance amount is reduced to Rs.20,000/- per
month whereas the principle laid down in paragraph no.14 of the judgment
of Shikha (supra) is to be seen that the wife is educated but she is residing in
Damoh that is the District Headquarter and there are bleak chances of getting
employment in proportion to educational qualification of wife. Only on that
basis, she can earn. Looking to few opportunities of employment, Court
cannot base its conclusion that she is able to maintain herself.
18. With the above discussion, the Criminal Revision is partially
allowed and maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court, Damoh is
reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.
19. The maintenance order shall be effective from the date of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29613
7 CRR-5059-2023
application i.e. 09.03.2022.
20. With the copy of this order, the record be sent back to the
concerned Family Court.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/8/2025
10:27:55 AM
[ad_1]
Source link