Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/2636/2018 of KAMAR AZHAR Vs FARIDA BEE on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2636 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
KAMAR AZHAR S/O UMAR DARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR KASAI WADA CITYMANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE APPLICANT)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.FARIDA BEE W/O KAMAR AZHAR, AGED ABOUT24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SILAI HAL MUKAM-KHINNIWALI GUWADI NAYAPURA, MANDSAUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.MAJHAR MINOR THROUGH NATURALGUARDIAN MOTHER FARIDA S/O KAMAR AJHARMUSLMAN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, R/O HALLMUKAM - KHINNIWALI, MUWADI, NAYAPURA,(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.AJHAR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIANMOTHER FARIDA S/O KAMAR AJHAR MUSLMAN,AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, R / O HALL MUKAM-KHINNIWALI, GUWADI NAYAPURA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
.....RESPONDENTS
This revision coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present revision is of the year 2018. It is noted that on 11.12.2023also no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. The matter is considered on merit.
2. The present revision is filed under Section 19(4) of Family CourtsAct r/w Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.05.2018passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in Case No.95/17 wherebythe application filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance under Section125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.
3. By the impugned order, the Family Court has awarded maintenanceof Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife, Rs.3000/- to respondentNo.2, who was 9 years of old and studying in Madarsa Board at that time andRs.2000/- to respondent No.3, who was minor son of 6 years. Thus, totalmaintenance of Rs.8000/- has been awarded. It is not in dispute that a marriagewas solemnized between the applicant and the respondent No.1 in the year 2007as per Muslim Law in Mukhyamantri Kanyadan Yojna. The respondents No.2& 3 are children out of the said wedlock. It was stated on behalf of respondentNo.1 that the applicant was subjecting to her with cruelty. He used to beat herand used to threat her for divorce and second Nikah. For the said reason, shehas withdrawn herself from the house of the applicant and started living with herparents.
4. Per contra on behalf of the applicant it was stated that the respondentNo.1 was forcing him to live separately from her parents and she herself hadgone to the house of her parents. She also lodged a report under Section 498-A, 323 of IPC.
5. Upon perusal of the record and the evidence of respondentNo.1/DW-1, it is evident that the applicant was subjecting her to cruelty and shealso lodged a report in this regard. The aforesaid testimony could not bedislodged by the present applicant. Regarding income, it was stated that the applicant is having a shop of timber and also takes contract for demolition ofthe house. According to her the applicant was earning Rs.30,000/- toRs.40,000/- per month, however, the trial Court did not accept the aforesaidcontention. It is held that in absence of any contrary evidence adduced by thepresent applicant, the moderate income was calculated and the Court awardedthe maintenance to the respondents.
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality orperversity in the order awarding the maintenance to the respondent and theamount awarded by the trial Court is just and proper. The revision isdismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGEsoumya