SUNITA GHOSH Vs. PRADEEP GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C., 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 3/3/2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr.A. No.178/2019, for setting aside or modifying the impugned order whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal filed by respondent/husband and order dtd. 16/5/2019, passed by Learned JMFC, Indore granting interim monetary relief amounting Rs.20,000.00 per month under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "D.V. Act"), has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 8/2/2011 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The petitioner had already given birth to a daughter Arohi out of her previous wedlock. The respondent was very well aware about the first marriage of the petitioner and also aware about daughter from first marriage. At the time of marriage the respondent was working in ICICI Bank while the petitioner was working in Employees Provident Fund Corporation. Soon after the marriage, behaviour of the respondent/husband became cruel towards the petitioner as well as with daughter. The respondent also neglected the petitioner. He used to shout badly and also used to demand money from her brother. Later on, in the year 2014, the respondent moved to Bhopal on the pretext of a new job, and ever since the parties are living separately. After failing in attempts of reconciliation, on 17/5/2018, the petitioner was constrained to file a complaint under the D.V. Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife has contended that the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court have committed grave illegality in awarding lesser maintenance in favour of wife. The petitioner was compelled to live separately. The petitioner is liable to get maintenance as per family status of the respondent, being a wife, she has started to live separately because of mental and physical cruelty committed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court by refusing to allow the maintenance to the petitioner and her child, is illegal, incorrect and liable to be set aside since the very foundation on the basis of which appeal was filed that the respondent/husband remains unemployed and having no means remained completely overturned with the latest affidavit. In view of the judgment, Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported as (2021) 2 SCC 324 , both parties filed their respective affidavits, whereby the petitioner made a full and true disclosure of her income as an employee of Employee Provident Fund Corporation, earning Rs.55,406.00. It is further submitted that the respondent/husband was earning about Rs.2.00 lakhs per month. The respondent/husband made a disclosure of Salary of Rs.98,000.00 per month (Annexure-P/7). He did not file any salary slip or any other relevant documents. He has also placed his reliance in the cases of Sunita Kachhwaha Vs. Anil Kachhwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, Reema Sulkan Vs. Sumer Singh Sulkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 and Shailja Vs. Khobanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199. Hence, the petitioner prayed that the petition filed by her may kindly be allowed and impugned order dtd. 3/3/2022 be set aside by modifying the order dtd. 16/5/2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 1679/2018 may be modified to some extent as prayed in the application filed by her.