VIMLA AGNIHOTRI vs DEEPA AGNIHOTRI AND ANOTHER

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court, Vidisha in MJC No.262/2014 by which the Trial Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4000/- per month by way of

maintenance. This revision has been filed by the applicant for enhancement of amount.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

alleging that she was married to the respondent on 19.5.2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After 2-3 months of the marriage, the respondent and

his family members started harassing and treating the applicant with cruelty on the ground that the father of the applicant has not given a Bolero four

wheeler in the dowry and, therefore, they were insisting that the applicant should ask a Bolero jeep from her father. When the applicant refused to

do so, then the respondent and his family members started harassing the applicant on trivial issues. The respondent used to say that the applicant is

of a black complexion and she is an illiterate lady and her father has not given the Bolero Jeep, therefore, he would remarry. The respondent used

to beat the applicant on this issue. On 24.11.2011, she was turned out of her matrimonial house and from thereafter she is residing in her parents

home. On 17.12.2011, she filed an application before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Vidisha but the respondent did not appear. On 23.3.2012, the

applicant lodged a FIR against the respondent and his family members for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and the police has

registered the case as Crime No.52/2012 which is pending. The respondent is financially strong person having 125 Beeghas of irrigated land. He

has a big house, two tractor and trolleys, one jeep and four motorcycles and his yearly income is Rs.20,00,000/- per year, whereas the applicant is

not having any independent source of income. She is unable to maintain herself, therefore, a prayer was made for grant of maintenance @

Rs.7,000/- per month.

The respondent filed his reply to the application and denied the allegation of harassment. He further stated that he is a small farmer. In fact, the

applicant herself had left the company of the respondent and her behavior towards the respondent and his family members was cruel. On various

occasions, the respondent had tried to pursue the applicant to live along with him but the applicant did not agree for that. The applicant always

insisted that the respondent should live separately from his family and since he was not in a position to fulfill the demands of the applicant, therefore,

the applicant has left his company and is residing in her parents home.

The Trial Court by order dated 20.11.2014 allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- per month by way of

maintenance.

None appears for the applicant even in the second round although it was being displayed on the Display Board that the matter is being taken up

for final hearing.

The respondent has submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly assessed the income of the respondent. The Trial Court has already awarded a

very higher maintenance amount, therefore, the same is not liable to be enhanced. The respondent is not having any agricultural land and the father

of the respondent is having only 40-45 Beeghas of land which is also a joint property and has not been partitioned.

Perused the grounds raised in the revision. Heard the counsel for the respondent and also perused the record.

Since the respondent has not challenged the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Court below, therefore, the question of entitlement of the

applicant to receive the maintenance amount does not require any reconsideration as the said finding has not been challenged by the respondent.

Accordingly, it is held that the applicant is entitled for maintenance amount as she is residing separately because of reasonable reasons.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the applicant has examined his mother Shribai (DW-2). In cross-examination, Shribai

(DW-2) has admitted that the applicant had given an application before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Vidisha where her son (respondent) was

called and he was advised to keep the applicant properly and not to harass her. However, the witness on her own, further added that even the

applicant was advised to live properly in her matrimonial house. It was further stated that in fact it is the applicant who does not wish to stay in her

matrimonial house and she wants to stay in her parents house. Further, this witness has stated that now they do not want to keep the applicant

along with them. She further admitted that her family is having more than 100 Beeghas of joint agricultural land. However, she denied for want of

knowledge about the share of the respondent in the entire land. The respondent (DW-1) has denied that how much agricultural land is recorded in

his name. He also denied for want of knowledge that he is having 125 Beeghas of agricultural land. However, he admitted that his some of the land

is irrigated land and the remaining land is unirrigated. He further denied that he is having two tractor and trolleys as well as a jeep. Ram Singh

(DW-3) has stated that he is having only 40 to 45 Beeghas of joint property. The entire land is an unirrigated land. However, he also could not

point out that how much land is in the name of the respondent. The respondent has not filed any document to show that how much land is in their

possession. Except by saying that whatever land the respondent and his family is having is the joint property, no other details have been given by

the respondent with regard to the names of the co-sharers. The respondent has expressed his ignorance about the total agricultural land, which he

is having, whereas Ram Singh (DW-3) has stated that he is having 40-45 Beeghas of agricultural land which is joint in nature, whereas Shribai

(DW-2) has admitted that they are having more than 100 Beeghas of joint agricultural land. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has tried to

suppress the details of the agricultural land, which he is having. However, in the light of the admission made by Shribai (DW-2) that they are having

more than 100 Beeghas of joint property as well as the contention of the applicant that the respondent is having about 125 Beeghas of land, this

Court is of the view that the respondent and his family is having about 125 Beeghas of land. The share of the respondent cannot be ascertained in

absence of any details given by the respondent himself but it is clear that the respondent is financially sound.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Trial Court is on a lower side because it is

well settled principle of law that for determination of quantum of maintenance amount, the status of the parties is also required to be seen. The

applicant/wife is entitled to enjoy the same status which she would have otherwise enjoyed in her matrimonial house.

Accordingly, considering the total land which the respondent and his family is having, this Court is of the view that the averment made by the

applicant that the yearly income of the respondent is Rs.20,00,000/- per year cannot be disbelieved. Since the respondent is not the owner of the

entire 125 Beeghas of land and he must be sharing his land along with his father, mother and siblings, therefore, it can be assumed that the yearly

income of the respondent must be around Rs.5,00,000/-. As the father and mother Shribai (DW-2) and Ram Singh (DW-3) themselves have

stated that the land is joint in nature, therefore, it is clear that the respondent has no other financial liability to discharge because all the family

members of the respondent are self dependent.

Considering the yearly income of the respondent, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.4,000/- granted by the Trial Court is on a

lower side. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- is modified and in place of Rs.4,000/- per month, the

respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- per month to the applicant by way of maintenance. The enhanced amount shall be payable from

20.11.2014, i.e. the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha.

Accordingly, the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vidisha in MJC No.262/2014 is hereby

modified to the extent mentioned above.

With aforesaid modification, the revision is allowed.