SOURABH KUSHWAHA Vs. POOJA KUSHWAHA
LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-68
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 18,2021

Sourabh Kushwaha Appellant
VERSUS
Pooja Kushwaha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order dated 15.11.2019 passed in MJC No.108/2018 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla awarding maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.2 by deciding the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
(2.) The respondent No.1 had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. with the plea that the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the appellant on 29.04.2011 at Seoni and she was living with her in- laws and initially the treatment of the in-laws was good but later on their behaviour had changed. The appellant was working in Hindustan Copper Ltd., Malajkhand Copper Project, therefore, the respondents had started living with the appellant at Malajkhand. It was further pleaded that the respondent No.1 had suffered abortion thrice but no steps for her treatment were taken by the appellant and ultimately the father of the respondent No.1 had got her treated at Jabalpur and; thereafter, the respondent No.1 had given birth to the female child, respondent No.2 on 19.03.2013 at Seoni. After the birth of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 had started living with her in-laws at Seoni whereas the appellant was residing at Malajkhand. The mother of the respondent No.1 was maltreated the appellant and was asked by the appellant to take back the respondent No.1. Consequently, the mother of the respondent No.1 had taken the respondents to Mandla in October, 2013. After three-four months, the appellant had taken the respondents to Malajkhand. On 28.03.2015, the respondent No.1 informed her mother that on the previous night, she was badly beaten by the appellant and appellant had also tried to strangulate her, therefore, she was very much afraid. When the parent of the respondent No.1 reached Malajkhand, they found that the respondents were standing outside their house and the door of the house was closed and appellant had gone to the office and his parents were inside the house. When nobody had opened the door, the parents of the respondent No.1 had taken the respondents to Malajkhand Police Station and reported the incident where the appellant was called and he had accepted his mistake and assured in writing that he would not repeat it in future. In these circumstance, respondent No.1 alongwith respondent No.2 had come to her parents house at Mandla and; thereafter, the appellant had made no efforts to take care of them. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 had no source of income whereas the appellant was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month and the maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.20,000/- for respondent No.2 was paid.
(3.) The appellant had filed reply to the application for maintenance and had raised the plea that the respondent No.1 is an Electronics Engineer and presently working in a Software Company at Bangalore and earning Rs.60,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 used to fight him on small issue and was pressurising him to shift to Bangalore and that the respondent No.1 is in the habit of smoking, therefore, she was left at her parents place for treatment. Further plea was raised that respondent No.1 was residing with her parent without any justifiable reason and is competent to maintain herself whereas appellant has responsibilities to take care of his ailing parents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.