MOHAN SWAROOOP CHAUHAN Vs. SMT. MOHINI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order dated 4-3-2014 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, dismissing the application dated 4/9/2013 for adjustment of the amount deposited in the Family Court, Jhansi under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of respondent/applicant and two children against the decreetal amount of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, as ordered in the divorce decree.

(2.) Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the writ petition are in narrow compass. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, vide judgment and decree dated 10/9/2010 in case No.25A/2010 HMA awarded decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act to petitioner-Mohan Swaroop Chauhan (husband) and granted permanent alimony to respondent-Smt. Mohini Chauhan (wife) at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband while taking exception to the order impugned contended that there is apparent jurisdictional error, as the court below refused to adjust the amount deposited in the Family Court, Jhansi under Section 125, Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of respondent/wife and two children against the decreetal amount of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, as ordered in the divorce decree, contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary, 1999 AIR(SC) 536 and the observations of the Division Bench in para 20, where adjustability of the amount is found to be permissible. Learned counsel while elaborating on aforesaid submission further tried to submit that one of the daughters since is married and other daughter is earning, therefore, the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court, Jhansi. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, having failed to exercise its jurisdiction of adjustment of the amount referred above, under the circumstances, has in fact and in effect committed serious error of law and facts warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.