Ram Prasad v. Smt. Geeta Mehra : 2014 (1) JabLJ 136 : 2014 (2) DMC 432 : (2015) 1 ANJ 95 : 2014 LRC Online 689 (MP)
Section125-Grant of maintenance-Revision-Applicant Proved that it was respondent who deserted him without any sufficient reason-When respondent was not entitled to get any maintenance from applicant and orders of maintenance passed on her favour appears to be perverse then, it is a fit case in which revision filed by applicant may be accepted and orders passed by courts below should be reversed-Impugned order set aside-petition allowed.
Held : The respondent Geeta has accepted that she went to her parents house alongwith Shahid, who was neighbour of her father. She had denied the suggestion that when the applicant went to her house to bring her, she was found on bed with Shahid. The applicant could not prove that the respondent was involved with that Shahid. However, the applicant could prove that it was the respondent, who deserted him without any sufficient reason. Under such circumstances, in the light of order passed by the single Bench of this Court in case of “Anil Kachwaha Vs. Sunita Kachwaha and others”, [(2008) 2 M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 323], the respondent was not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant because she left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground and thereafter, she refused to come back.
Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that both the Courts below have passed the perverse orders in favour of the respondent. It is true that no reappreciation of evidence can be done in the revision but, an interference can be done in the orders if they are perverse. To assess that the orders passed by both the Courts below were perverse, evidence laid by the parties was required to be considered. Under such circumstances, when the respondent was not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant and the orders of maintenance passed in her favour appears to be perverse then, it is a fit case in which the revision filed by the applicant may be accepted and the orders passed by both the Courts below should be reversed. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The orders passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside. Also, the maintenance application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent is dismissed. However, the applicant shall not be entitled to get the maintenance amount back which he has already paid to the respondent in compliance to the orders passed by both the Courts below.