Savitri Dhurve vs Kishor Kumar Dhurve

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87688
1 CRR-3242-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3242 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010395292024
SAVITRI DHURVE
Versus
KISHOR KUMAR DHURVE
Appearance:
Shri Shailendra Dwivedi with Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Advocates for the
petitioner.
None for the respondent though served.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/wife
challenging the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dindori in MJCR No.133/2023, whereby the Family Court has
allowed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and awarded an
amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/wife towards monthly maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that there is no
dispute as to the fact that the petitioner was married to the respondent on
18.04.2018, as per Hindu rituals and the respondent/husband is working as
Constable in CRPF. He submits that due to committal of cruelty by the
respondent and his family members, the petitioner/wife is living with her
parents. He submits that despite recording finding in respect of income/net
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:08:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87688
2 CRR-3242-2024
salary of the respondent/husband to be Rs.40,000/- per month (as against the

gross salary of Rs.50,300/-), the Family Court has committed an illegality in
awarding a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards monthly maintenance, just
contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan
Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200
(para 15). He submits that looking to the net salary of the
respondent/husband, at least an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month ought to
have been awarded to the petitioner/wife. With these submissions, he prays
for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the instant criminal
revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and perused the record
as well as the impugned order.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Family Court while
deciding the point for determination no. 1 & 2, has observed that there is
sufficient reason available with the petitioner/wife to live separately and that
she is unable to maintain herself. It is also clear that while deciding the point
for determination no. 3 & 4, the Family Court has observed that the
respondent/husband is having sufficient income/handsome final status and
found the net salary of the respondent/husband to be Rs.40,000/- per month.
5. In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-

"15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the
liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order
dated 2-2-2015 awarding a maintenance of Rs.16,000 to
the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:08:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87688
3 CRR-3242-2024
under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the
High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband
was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of
Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards
income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the
appellant is stated to be Rs 95,527. Following
Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [Kulbhushan Kumar
v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129] , in this case, it was
held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just
and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the
respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony
awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the
parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay
maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the
factual situation of the case and the court would be
justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed
on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net
salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the
High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance
amount. However, since the appellant has also got
married second time and has a child from the second
marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to
reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs 23,000 to Rs
20,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent
wife and son."

6. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario and settled legal position,
in my considered opinion the Family Court has committed an illegality in
awarding the aforesaid amount of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to
the petitioner/wife.
7. Since the aforesaid aspect and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Choudhary (supra), has not been
taken into consideration and as no one is appearing on behalf of the
respondent/husband before this Court, therefore, the matter is remanded to
the Family Court for decision of the application under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. afresh, after restoring the original application to its original number.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:08:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87688
4 CRR-3242-2024
8. Parties are directed to remain present before the concerned Family

Court on 26.11.2026. It is made clear that if the parties do not remain present
before the Family Court on the given date, the Family Court shall issue fresh
notice/summons for securing their presence before the Court.
9. It is also made clear that till the final/fresh decision of the
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent/husband shall
be liable to pay the amount of maintenance of Rs.5,000/-, as per impugned
order dtd. 11.03.2024.
10. With the aforesaid, instant criminal revision is partly allowed and
disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
12:08:48