AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 996 words{1} Both Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The main order be retained in Cr.R. No.3603/2018.
{2} Cr.R. No.3603/2018 and Cr.R. No.4249/2018 arise from the same order dated 25.05.2018 passed in MJC No.70/2017, by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur; whereby learned Family Court granted interim maintenance allowance to Smt. Ragini Bharti and her daughter, against Prashant Kumar Bharti.
{3} The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that Ragini Bharti got married with Prashant Kumar Bharti on 02.05.2014. Ku. Isha Bharti was born from this wedlock. Smt. Ragini Bharti and her daughter were neglected by her husband. She filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming monthly maintenance allowance before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur alleging that she is not having any means to maintain herself.
She is living separately from her husband along with her daughter because she was being harassed by her husband Prashant Kumar Bharti on account of non-fulfillment of his demand of dowry. In reply Prashant Kumar Bharti admitted that Smt. Ragini Bharti is his legally wedded wife and Isha Bharti is his daughter. Smt. Ragini Bharti wants to marry another person Pravesh Sahu. She was suffering from skin disease and this fact was suppressed before the marriage. She is living separately on his own volition, running a beauty parlor and earning Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month. Respondent Prashant Kumar Bharti is not running a company. He is working as a labour and earning only Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month.
{4} Learned Family Court after hearing both the parties directed Prashant Kumar Bharti to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) as monthly maintenance allowance to Ragini Bharti and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to his daughter Isha Bharti till final disposal of the application. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner Prashant Kumar Bharti filed a Revision Petition Cr.R.No.3603/2018 for quashment of maintenance order on the ground that his wife is living separately on his own volition without any reasonable cause, earning income from beauty parlor and court below did not consider these facts properly and calculated the approximate income of Prashant Kumar Bharti as Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) per month, on wrong assumptions, and pray for quashment of the interim maintenance.
{5} Ragini Bharti along with her daughter filed another Revision Petition Cr.R.No.4249/2018 on the ground that the learned Family Court fixed a meager amount as interim maintenance. Prashant Kumar Bharti is earning Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) per month. Court assessed the income of Prashant Kumar Bharti Rs.50,000/- per month, in spite of that, fixed a meager amount as interim maintenance, prays for enhancement of interim maintenance. In spite of that, learned Family Court fixed a meager amount for interim maintenance, pray for enhancement of interim maintenance.
{6} Heard both the parties and perused the documents filed along with both the petitions. It is admitted that Ragini Bharti is the legally wedded wife of Prashant Kumar Bharti and Ku. Isha Bharti is his daughter. Interim maintenance is fixed during the pendency of proceedings, if wife is not having any means to maintain herself, and quantum is decided on the basis of the basic requirement of the person. Final maintenance allowance is decided on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. If it is admitted that Prashant Kumar Bharti is the husband of Ragini Bharti and father of Ku. Isha Bharti, then it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and daughter, if wife is not having any means for earning. It is for the husband, if he claimed that his wife is having any means of earning to prove that point. In this pending case, husband Prashant Kumar Bharti alleged that his wife is having income by running a beauty parlour shop, but he has not produced any document or any statement of account etc.. It is established prima facie that Ragini Bharti and her daughter are not earning anything to maintain themselves. Ragini Bharti has submitted an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the court below. That application is pending. Prashant Kumar Bharti in this petition averted that Ragini Bharti is suffering from some skin disease and wants to marry another person. This is a stigma on the character of his wife, prima facie good cause to live separately.
{7} Now the question arises, how much amount should be given to the wife and daughter of Prashant Kumar Bharti for maintenance. In the proceedings below, Ragini Bharti submitted a statement of income tax return filed by Prashant Kumar Bharti and in this petition Prashant Kumar Bharti also filed a Shop Establishment Certificate, which is attached in this petition at Page No.25, which shows that Prashant Kumar Bharti is running a shop in the name of "Shining Sun" and having two employees. Therefore, to equate the status of wife with the husband, interim maintenance allowance should be fixed. The court below calculated the estimated income of Prashant Kumar Bharti as Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) per month. But this Court is not satisfied with the calculation of income of Prashant Kumar Bharti. But income tax return shows that Prashant Kumar Bharti is earning a Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) per year that prima facie comes to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month and court below awarded Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) interim maintenance to Ragini Bharti and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to her daughter aged about two years. Therefore, this court does not find any error in the quantum of the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below.
{9} In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any merit in the Cr.R. No.3603/2018 filed by Prashant Kumar Bharti and Cr.R. No.4249/2018 filed by Ragini Bharti and Ku. Isha Bharti, hence, both the petitions stand dismissed.
Copy of the order of this petition be kept in the Cr.R. No.4249/2018.