VINESH SINGH Vs. NEHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in M.J.C. No.65/2015, whereby the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the respondents has been allowed and awarded the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 27.02.2009. Respondent No.2 is a girl child born out of said wedlock. After marriage, the applicant and respondent No.1 lived together for 9 years in a joint family. The respondent No.1 found it difficult to accept the applicant and his family values and she was not ready to live in joint family and pressurised the applicant to live separately. In the year 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with ITPC Convulsion Disorder caused due to a benign cyst in his brain. The said cyst is inoperable due to low blood platelets. Thereafter, respondent No.1 called her parents and left the applicant's house on 27.05.2013. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint in a public hearing against the applicant and his family members and took respondent No.2 with her. In order to save his marriage, the applicant succumbed to respondents pressure and left his parents home and started living separately with the respondents. The respondent No.1 was an absent spouse and did not adhere to the role and responsibilities as a wife. The respondent No.1 used to be busy on her phone all the time. The respondent No.1 treated the applicant in a very inhuman manner. For the sake of saving his matrimonial ties and for the sake of his young daughter, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself and her daughter to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month. The applicant filed the reply to the said application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and refuted the allegations made therein. It is mentioned that the applicant is not earning any amount as he is suffering from ITPC Convulsion Disorder caused due to a benign cyst and all his expenses were borne by his parents. The family Court after recording the evidence has passed the order dated 18.08.2017, thereby partly allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is on higher side. It is submitted that the family Court while passing the order has not considered that the applicant is suffering from ITPC Convulsion Disorder and he is not earning and totally dependant on his parents. It is further submitted that the respondents have not adduced any evidence with regard to the proof of income, hence no maintenance would have been granted. It is further submitted that the family Court has failed to appreciate that the documents Ex. D/1 to D/4 goes to show that he has gifted the said properties owing to financial distress as he was unable to meet the medical expenses of his disease. It is further submitted that the disease was diagnosed in the year 2010 and since then, he has been continuously taking medical treatment. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 is a educated lady and is earning well to sustain herself. It is also submitted that the family Court has failed to prove that the respondent No.1 is living separately without any sufficient cause and therefore, is not entitled to get any maintenance.