Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/2780/2018 of KARTIK @ ANKUR Vs BHAGYASHREE 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. 2780 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
KARTIK @ ANKUR S/O SHYAMLAL RATHORE, AGEDABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE INDRA NAGAR,UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE APPLICANT)
.....PETITIONER
AND
BHAGYASHREE W/O KARTIK RATHORE, AGED ABOUT26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE INDRA NAGAR,UJJAIN/ IN PRESENT CHATRACHAYA COLONY,PITHAMPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
.....RESPONDENT
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
It is noted that on 06.11.2023 and 08.01.2024 also, no one appeared onbehalf of the applicant. The revision is pending since 2018. In absence ofcounsel for the parties, the matter is considered on merit.
2. The present revision is filed under Section 19(4) of Family CourtsAct, 1984 against the order dated 28.04.2018 passed by Principal Judge, FamilyCourt, Dhar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2000057/2018 whereby theapplication filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been partlyallowed and the applicant has been directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month maintenance to the respondent.
3. Upon perusal of the record and the pleadings, it is evident that a marriage was solemnized between applicant and respondent on 27.02.2015. It isstated that after the marriage, the applicant started harassing the non-applicantfor not bringing the dowry and used to physically torture her. For the saidreason, she had withdrawn herself from the company of the applicant andstarted living with her mother. The applicant had denied the aforesaid allegationsof the demand of dowry and cruelty. The applicant held that the respondent hasalso filed a case under Section 498-A of IPC against the present applicant andthereafter he filed an application under Section 9 of Restitution of ConjugalRight. In para-10 of her statement, she stated that she is willing to live with theapplicant. In view of the aforesaid, the Court held that the respondent is entitledfor maintenance as she was forced to live separately for the said reason.Regarding income, it is held that the applicant could not adduce evidence,however, considering the moderate income of educated person, the Courtawarded Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.
4. 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.
soumya
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE