Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/3412/2021 of DEEPAK Vs SMT. SUSHILA @ SONU on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
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. 3412 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
DEEPAK S/O HARIRAM PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 26YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB GRAM SEMALIA NARELAP.S. THANDLA TEH. THANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE APPLICANT)
.....PETITIONER
AND
SMT. SUSHILA @ SONU D/O MAYARAM, AGED ABOUT24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT GRAM SEMALIANARELA TEH. THANDLA JHABUA AT RPESENTRAJGARH TEH. SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI )
.....RESPONDENT
This revision coming on for admission this day, the 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
This revision is pending since 2021.
The matter is considered on merit.
The present revision is filed u/S.125 of Cr.P.C aggrieved of the orderpassed by JMFC, Family Court, Sardapur, Distt. Dhar in MCr.C. No.59/2015on 28.11.2017 whereby the application filed by the respondent u/Sl.125 ofCr.P.C has been allowed and maintenance of Rs.3000/- has been awarded.
2. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, it is evidentthat after some time of the marriage the applicant started demanding dowry and subjected the applicant to physical torture. She also reported the matter toPolice station and thereafter the matter was compromised between the partieswhich was reduced in writing on the stamp paper. Despite that, he continued totorture the applicant and for the said reason she has withdrawn herself.
3. Though the applicant refuted the aforesaid contention, however, thetrial court after considering the evidence of both the parties held that theapplicant was forced to live separately and, therefore, is entitled formaintenance. The respondent stated that the applicant was earning Rs.20,000/-per month as salary being an employee of M.P. Electricity Supply Company. However, no evidence was adduced regarding the income of the applicant butthe fact of serving in electricity company was established. Considering thesame, the court held that the income of the applicant is about Rs.12,000/- andawarded Rs.3000/- to the non-applicant.
4. I do not find any illegality ind the impugned order. No interference is called for in the revision. The revision is dismissed.
VM
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGEJUDGE