Pradeep Shakyavar vs Smt Jyoti Shakya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
1 CRR-153-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 153 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030011212026
PRADEEP SHAKYAVAR
Versus
SMT JYOTI SHAKYA AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Kumar Gohadkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri S.K.Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Date of reserve : 12.10.2026
Date of order : 03/11/2026
ORDER

The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 442 of
BNSS challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in MJCR
No.152/2024, whereby monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- has been
awarded in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- has been awarded
in favour of respondent No.2.
2 . The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between
respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was solemnized on 2.03.2014 as per
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
2 CRR-153-2026
Hindu rites and customs at Hazira, Gwalior, out of the said wedlock,

respondent No. 2 was born on 21.09.2017. On account of some family
dispute relating to demand of dowry, respondent No.1 was compelled to
live separately with her parents. Respondent No. 1 filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance on the ground that
she has been physically and mentally harassed by the petitioner and his
family members on account of demand of dowry, which compelled her
to live separately along with her parents. She is unable to maintain
herself and respondent No. 2 is also not physically fit. Accordingly, she
claimed monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- for herself and Rs.
10,000/- for respondent No.2.
3. Consequent upon receiving the notice, the petitioner herein tendered
his appearance by filing a reply denying the claim of the respondents on
the ground that respondent No.1 was living separately without any
sufficient reason because she does not want to live with his family
members. There was no demand of dowry either on his behalf or on
behalf of his family members, and the application has been filed on false
grounds which deserves to be rejected.
4 . The learned Family Court after evaluating the evidence on record
passed the order dated 20.11.2025, whereby a sum of Rs.15,000/- has
been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- has been
awarded in favour of respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner has preferred present revision.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
3 CRR-153-2026
maintenance granted in favour of respondent No.2 is concerned, he has

no objection, and his challenge is confined only to grant of maintenance
to respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent No.1 without any sufficient reason is living separately and,
therefore, is not entitled for maintenance in view of Section 125(4) of
Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court without appreciating the evidence in
right perspective has passed the order of maintenance in favour of
respondent No.1. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 does not
want to live with his family members and has filed a false criminal case
under Section 498-A of IPC only to disrepute the image of the petitioner
as well as his family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
referred the statement of respondent No.1 recorded before the Family
Court, wherein she stated that the petitioner does not want to live
separately from his family and this is the only cause of dispute between
them. She also stated that she does not want to live with her in-laws. It
was also stated by her that only to disrepute the image of the family, a
false report of demand of dowry was lodged. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the said submission clearly establishes that
respondent No.1 has falsely lodged a criminal case of demand of dowry
and that she does not want to live with his family members, therefore,
she is living separately. The said reason cannot be said to be a sufficient
reason for living separately, therefore, she is not entitled for
maintenance.
6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
4 CRR-153-2026
petitioner is in government service and is earning handsomely. His

father is also receiving pension and his younger brother is also working
as a Sub-Engineer. The petitioner is competent to maintain the
respondents, but he deliberately refused to maintain them. It is further
submitted that respondent No.1 filed an application for restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the
said proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise, but despite the
said compromise, the petitioner never came up to bring her back to her
matrimonial home. Respondent No.2 is not physically fit and she was
mentally tortured by the family members of the petitioner on this issue
by making comments that she has given birth to an insane child.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent
No.1 in her examination-in-chief specifically stated in this regard, which
was not controverted by the petitioner. As respondent No.1 was
physically and mentally tortured by the petitioner and his family
members, therefore, she was compelled to live separately and which is
the sufficient cause rightly appreciated by the learned Family Court.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned
Family Court. No interference is called for in the impugned order.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8 . Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to look at
the essential ingredients of section 125 of the Cr.P.C which constitutes
the statutory conditions that a wife seeking maintenance must satisfy,
and which the Court is required to examine before granting the requested
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
5 CRR-153-2026
relief. The provisions under section 125 of Cr.P.C. act as a crucial

instrument of social justice enacted to protect wives, children and infirm
parents from the perils of vagrancy and destitution and must be liberally
construed in favour of the claimant. Accordingly, it has to be shown
cumulatively that the claimant is the legally wedded wife of the person
from whom maintenance is sought; The husband has sufficient means to
maintain her; the husband has neglected or refused to maintain the wife
and she is unable to maintain herself. Wife living separately from her
husband bears the burden to show a sufficient and just cause for doing
so, failing which sub section (4) of section 125 of Cr.P.C. disentitles her
to maintenance. When these ingredients are established, the quantum of
maintenance is to be determined having regards to the social and
financial status of the parties.
9 . From perusal of the reply to the application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner made certain
allegations against respondent No.1 regarding her character and conduct,
but to prove the same, no evidence was produced, which shows that the
petitioner has made baseless allegations against respondent No.1. From
perusal of statement of petitioner, it is also clear that the petitioner has
not established the fact that when the proceedings under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act culminated in compromise, then why he did not
take any action to bring respondent No.1 back to her matrimonial home.
In the reply, he stated that the proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act filed by the petitioner was dismissed, whereas in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
6 CRR-153-2026
statement recorded before the Court, he stated that on the basis of

compromise, the case under Section 9 was closed, whereas respondent
No.1 specifically stated in her statement that after compromise in the
proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner did
not come to bring her back. The said evidence of respondent No.1 was
not controverted by the petitioner.
10. Though respondent No.1 has stated in her statement that she had
lodged a false complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC, but she also
specifically stated that she was physically and mentally tortured by the
petitioner and his family members and after the compromise in the
proceeding under Section 9, the petitioner did not come forward to take
her back to her matrimonial home and the specific statement of
respondent No.1 remained uncontroverted. The petitioner failed to
establish his act to bring respondent No.1 back to her matrimonial
home, whereas he made simple statement that Section 9 proceedings
were closed after compromise but what efforts he made after
compromise to keep respondent No.1 with him, did not utter any word,
therefore, in such a situation, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has
no sufficient reason to live separately.
1 1 . Respondent No.1 has also stated in her statement before the
learned Family Court that she was mentally and physically tortured by
the family members of the petitioner on the ground that an insane child
has been born and now their lineage would come to an end. The said
statement has also not been controverted by the petitioner in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33729
7 CRR-153-2026
statement before the learned Family Court.

1 2 . The learned Family Court after evaluating the evidence of the
parties found that the petitioner is in government service and is earning
Rs.70,000/- per month. His father is a pensioner and his younger brother
is also working as a Sub-Engineer. Thus, the petitioner has sufficient
means to maintain the respondents. Learned Family Court has also
found that petitioner has neither produced any document or led any
evidence to prove that respondent No.1 was engaged in any private job
and thereby receiving any salary, and therefore, rejected the objection of
the petitioner in this regard.
13. Therefore, in such a situation, the findings recorded by the learned
Family Court that respondent No.1 has sufficient reason to live
separately is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and cannot be
said to be perverse or arbitrary. Hence, no interference is called for in
the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed.

(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
ms/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 04-Nov-26
9:54:03 AM