Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Rai vs Smt Pragati Rai on 24 July, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J AB A L PU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3769 of 2025
SHAILENDRA RAI
Versus
SMT PRAGATI RAI
Appearance:
Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sushil Kumar Jha - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/husband
challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Damoh in MJCR Case no.136/2023, whereby the Family Court has allowed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to
the respondent/wife, towards monthly maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that although the
petitioner did not place his salary/pay slip on record, but in spite of the admitted
net income/salary of the petitioner to be Rs.29,134/- p.m. (gross salary to be
Rs.33,373/- p.m.), the Family Court has committed an illegality in awarding an
amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards maintenance, just contrary to law laid down
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
2
Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 = AIR 2017 SC 2383. With these
submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the
criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife supports the
impugned order and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Needless to mention, before passing an order of maintenance, in addition
to the finding of separate living with sufficient reason, the Court has to consider
income/financial status of the parties. While deciding point for determination no.2,
the Family Court has vide paragraphs 18 & 19 of the impugned order, tried to see
the income/financial status of the respondent/wife and concluded that
respondent/wife has no sufficient source of income to maintain herself.
6. In continuation of the aforesaid, the Family Court has from paragraph 20
to 23, appreciated evidence in respect of income/financial status of the
petitioner/husband. In paragraph 20, the Family Court has taken into consideration
oral admission of the petitioner/husband regarding his net salary to be Rs.29,134/-
p.m. and from paragraph 21 to 23, has considered the evidence of
petitioner/husband regarding expenditures being allegedly done by him and at last
rejected the pleas taken by the husband in respect of alleged expenses being borne
by him. However, no finding in respect of income of the husband, has been
recorded in the impugned order.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that although the order-sheet dated
26.06.2023 drawn by the Family Court, records that an affidavit in compliance
with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha &
Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324 has been filed, but a perusal of the record received from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
3
the Family Court, Damoh reveals that no such affidavit is available on record.
Thus, the recital made in the order-sheet is not borne out by the record transmitted
to this Court.
8. As to on what basis the Family Court has awarded an amount of
Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/wife towards monthly maintenance, is not clear on
record, especially in the light of satisfaction recorded by the Family Court in
paragraph 20 of the impugned order, on the basis of admission made by the
petitioner/husband regarding his net salary to be Rs.29,134/- p.m. For the sake of
argument, if this amount is taken to be the net monthly income of the
petitioner/husband (in absence of salary/pay slip), then awarding of Rs.15,000/-
towards monthly maintenance is contrary to the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra). Relevant paragraph 16 of
which, is quoted as under:
“16. The review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent-wife
pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 02.02.2015 awarding a
maintenance of Rs. 16,000/- to the respondent-wife as well as to her minor son was 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 Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari and Anr. (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 dependant 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.”
9. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
(supra), while passing the order of maintenance to the wife, the Family Court is
required to take into consideration financial capacity of the husband, his
actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
4
family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any,
with a view to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.
Meaning thereby, the Court is required to record specific finding in respect of
monthly income of the husband, so that appropriate amount of maintenance may
be awarded to the party concerned.
10. Recently, in the case of Anamika Jain v. Dr. Atul Jain, 2026 Supreme
(SC) 361 = SLP (C) No. 5220 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under :
“10. Marriage, as an institution in our society, is founded on emotional bonding, companionship, and
mutual support, which cannot be evaluated in purely monetary terms. A woman often enters
matrimony with legitimate aspirations of a stable and dignified life. When such a marriage breaks
down, the obligation of the husband to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity does
not come to an end merely on the ground that she is educated or has parental support. Post-divorce,
the wife is entitled to live a life consistent with the standard of living she was accustomed to during
the subsistence of the marriage.
11. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.
Meena and others, (2015) 6 SCC 353,wherein, while dealing with proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C, it was observed as under:
“2… The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an
unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is
entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her
husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the
husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband
cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the
solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the
field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar.
A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate
and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render
the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able
bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to
get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.”
11.1. In Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, this Court comprehensively examined the
principles governing maintenance of wife, children and parents, and framed authoritative guidelines
under Article 142 of the Constitution. The following observations are apposite:
“77. The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse
is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a
punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of
maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties;
reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078Cr. R-3769 of 2025
5professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the
income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in
her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was
working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her
employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of
the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife5[Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v.
District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 ; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011)
13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290].
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712, this Court held
that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the
circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for
her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could
support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the
spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court
should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain
under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at
the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard
of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of
the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his
moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.”
“90. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded
maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in
the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailji v. Khobbanna, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589,
this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground
to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the
income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle
of her husband in the matrimonial home [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356]. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere
survival [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ 3451].”
12. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the respondent -husband has sufficient
earning capacity and financial means to pay more than Rs. 15,000/- per month towards permanent
alimony. Considering the present cost of living, the impact of inflation over the past decade, and the
overall circumstances of the parties, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Family Court,
as affirmed by the High Court, is inadequate and warrants enhancement.”
11. From perusal of the impugned order and as has been conceded by
learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, it is clear that the petitioner/husband
did not place his salary/pay slip on record. Apparently, the application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 26.06.2023 i.e. after decision given by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
6
which certain guidelines in respect of filing/submission of salary/pay slip, have
been issued. As to why, the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, have not
been followed by the parties or by the Family Court, is not clear from the record.
12. While considering the principles of judicial discipline, recently the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of Rajesh Goyal v. M/s Laxmi
Constructions and Others, AIR 2026 SC 1731 = 2026 INSC 299, held as under:
“13. In these facts, we may observe that the only reason this matter has resulted in the passing of
this order is because the cherished principle of judicial discipline and adherence to generally
accepted principles of law was put to the wayside. Respect for the authority of orders passed post
adjudication by a judicial activity, be it this Court or the High Court is a basic principle of judicial
comity, more so, upon attaining finality. The principle of nullity of jurisdiction is also common
knowledge and well established. Yet, here we are. It has to be acknowledged that this is not the
first time this Court is confronted with such a situation. We may only make reference to what has
been observed on similar past instances as follows:
In Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446
“15……..The analogy of the inferior court’s disobedience to the specific order of a
superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of
contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the
authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly the deliberate and mala
fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the
constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct
has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter
conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to
undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court, generally, but is
also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion
in the administration of law.”
In Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 443
“6……..The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate
authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.”
In C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee , (1995) 5 SCC 457
“Duty of the Judge to maintain high standard of conduct. Its judicial individualism – Whether
protection imperative?
21. Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to expect that a
Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical
firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep most exacting
standards of propriety in judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of
judicial process. Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a
Judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high
moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of
conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
7
enhance public image, not only of the Judge but the court itself. It is, therefore, a basic
requirement that a Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same
must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is
higher than that expected of a layman and also higher than that expected of an advocate. In
fact, even his private life must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher than
those deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the
fallen standard in the society.
………….
23. To keep the stream of justice clean and pure, the Judge must be endowed with sterling
character, impeccable integrity and upright behaviour. Erosion thereof would undermine the
efficacy of the rule of law and the working of the Constitution itself. The Judges of higher
echelons, therefore, should not be mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles, human
failings and weak character which may be found in those in other walks of life. They should be
men of fighting faith with tough fibre not susceptible to any pressure, economic, political or of
any sort. The actual as well as the apparent independence of judiciary would be transparent
only when the office-holders endow those qualities which would operate as impregnable
fortress against surreptitious attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In short,
the behaviour of the Judge is the bastion for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy,
liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law.”
In M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka , (2003) 7 SCC 517
“8…….The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in
judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance
to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs……..”
13. Since, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the law of
land, therefore, is binding on all the Courts including the High Courts. Similarly,
the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are authoritative
guidelines issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, have to be
followed as they exist, in their letter and spirit. If the same is/are not followed, that
may amount to contempt of Court.
14. At this stage, it is apposite to note that Hon’ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly emphasised the mandatory compliance of the guidelines laid down in
Rajnesh (Supra), so as to ensure uniformity and expeditious adjudication of the
proceedings, arising out of matrimonial disputes, which is also apparent from the
observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
8
Jitesh Sharma, (2024) 14 SCC 355 = 2023 INSC 981, relevant paragraphs of
which are as follows:
“14. Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of the
judgment of this Court in Rajnesh case [Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ)
220 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 749], which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for
further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. The case in
hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is
still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either
interim or final, without there being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. Apparently,
the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for
expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Comprehensive guidelines were
issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of
maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 CrPC, the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and criteria for determining quantum of
maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of
maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a result, the litigation which
should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate.
15. As in the case in hand, the impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of
reasons. In our opinion, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to
the High Court for consideration afresh. Ordered accordingly. As the respondent remained
unrepresented, the High Court may issue notice for his appearance on the date so fixed by it.
16. Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this
Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh case [Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 :
(2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 749] , we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary
General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers
through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State
Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well. Ordered
accordingly.”
15. Recently, this Court also in the case of Rishabh Shrivastava vs. Smt.
Ritu Shrivastava @ Pinki Shrivastava and others, 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 293 = Cr.
Revision No.4116/2024 order dtd.17.07.2026 (at Jabalpur) while allowing the
criminal revision followed the guidelines issued in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and
held as under:-
“7. From perusal of paragraph 13 of the impugned order, it is clear that Family Court has, on the
basis of the post/designation of the petitioner/husband held by him as Marketing Manager in
the Basant Agro Tech (I) Limited, Akola, presumed the monthly salary/income of the petitioner to
be Rs.50,000/- per month and on the basis of admission made by the respondent 1/wife in respect
of her monthly income of Rs.6,000/- and even in absence of any pay slip of the respondent 1/wife,
awarded the aforesaid amount of maintenance.
8. In my considered opinion, in absence of any pay slip of the respondent 1/wife, the Family
Court has committed an illegality in accepting the income of the respondent 1/wife to beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078Cr. R-3769 of 2025
9Rs.6,000/- p.m. on the basis of assertion in the affidavit filed by the respondent 1/wife and even in
presence of the pay slip of the petitioner/husband, has committed an illegality in presuming the
income of the petitioner/husband to be Rs.50,000/- p.m..
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC
324; has held as under:
“70. We feel that the Affidavit to be filed by parties residing in urban areas, would require
to be entirely different from the one applicable to rural areas, or tribal areas. For this
purpose, a comprehensive Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is being
attached as Enclosure I and II to this judgment.
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
ENCLOSURE I
Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Agrarian Deponents
I ______, d/o _______or s/o _________, aged about ______years, resident of _, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
A. *******
B. *******
C. *******
D. *******
E. *******
F. Details of Income of the Deponent
1. Name of employer:
2. Designation:
3. Monthly income:
4. If engaged in Government Service, furnish latest Salary Certificates or current Pay
Slips or proof of deposit in bank account, if being remitted directly by employer.
5. If engaged in the private sector, furnish a certificate provided by the employer
stating the designation and gross monthly income of such person, and Form 16 for the
relevant period of current employment.
6. If any perquisites, benefits, house rent allowance, travel allowance, dearness allowance
or any other service benefit is being provided by the employer during the course of current
employment.
7. Whether assessed to income tax?
f yes, submit copies of the Income Tax Returns for the periods given below :
(i) One year prior to marriage
(ii) One year prior to separation
(iii) At the time when the Application for maintenance is filed
8. Income from other sources, such as rent, interest, shares, dividends, capital gains, FDRs,
Post office deposits, mutual funds, stocks, debentures, agriculture, or business, if any,
alongwith TDS in respect of any such income.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
10
9. Furnish copies of Bank Statement of all accounts for the last 3 years.”
**** **** **** **** ****
10. Also in the case of Smt. Geeta & Anr. v. The State & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1108 = 2025
Supreme(Online)(Del) 48735 decided on 10.09.2025, a Coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court
has held as under:
“10. In the above context, this Court has carefully examined the evidence on record as well
as the findings recorded by the learned Family Court. Insofar as the wife’s claim for
maintenance is concerned, it emerges that she had admitted in her cross-examination that
she is employed in the Education Department at Khekra, Baghpat, though on a temporary
basis. She further admitted that her salary slip of December 2016 reflected her salary as Rs.
33,052/- and her income tax return for the year 2017-2018 also disclosed an annual income
of Rs. 4,00,724/-, though it is her case that thereafter, her services were terminated by way
of judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after which she was
working on a temporary basis. While she claimed that her current salary is only Rs.
10,000/- per month, she failed to produce any recent salary slip or Form-16 to
substantiate the same, and thus, no recent salary certificate was placed before the
learned Family Court despite opportunities given by the learned Trial Court. She also
did not offer any plausible explanation in the evidence for withholding recent salary
details.
11. The learned Family Court, thus rightly reached to a conclusion that such omission,
without any cogent explanation, casts a doubt on the genuineness of her claim and justifies
an adverse inference against her. The learned Family Court, therefore, rightly held that the
wife had concealed her actual income and withheld the most relevant documents which
alone could establish her present financial incapacity. This Court concurs with that view,
as the primary ingredient for grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125
Cr.P.C. – i.e. her inability to maintain herself – has not been satisfactorily proved, in
absence of clear and reliable evidence of financial hardship, the claim of the wife
becomes speculative and cannot be sustained.”
11. In view of the aforesaid and in my considered opinion, the Family Court ought to have
directed both the parties to produce the current pay slip on record, as the same constitutes
cogent evidence for determining the Income/financial status of parties to the lis and then on
that basis ought to have passed the impugned order awarding maintenance to the
respondents. Without there being any proper proof of income of Respondent 1/wife the Family
Court is not right in accepting the income of Respondent 1/wife to be Rs.6,000/- per month.
Similarly, the Family Court is not right in presuming monthly salary of the petitioner/husband to
be Rs.50,000/- p.m. ignoring the available pay-slip regarding salary of the petitioner/husband. If
the Court was not satisfied with the photocopy of pay slip of the petitioner/husband’s income,
then the production of a fresh/original pay slip could have been ordered.”
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in my considered opinion, for
want of compliance of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned order being
unsustainable, deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to
the Family Court with the direction to restore the application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. to its original number and to decide the same afresh after ensuring
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
11
compliance of the directions/guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324.
17. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner/husband himself did
not comply with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajnesh (supra), therefore, the petitioner/husband shall continue to pay the
awarded amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife, till fresh decision of
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
18. With the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed and
disposed of.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
20. It is also apt to mention here that in all the maintenance proceedings
arising out of matrimonial disputes, for want of compliance of the aforesaid
guidelines, this Court is left with no option but to waste its precious time in asking
questions from the concerned counsel(s) appearing for the parties, as to whether
the parties have followed/complied with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) or not and in most of the cases they
are unable to state whether such compliance has been made or give equivocal
answers, compelling the court to undertake physical verification of the record to
satisfy itself of compliance. Thereafter, duty of the Court begins and it has to
check entire record produced by the parties or to call for the record of the Court
below to clear the aforesaid doubt, which is sheer wastage of time of the Court.
21. Hence in these compelling circumstances, all the Family Courts of the
State of Madhya Pradesh or other Courts having jurisdiction to decide the
maintenance application/cases, are directed to make mention in first/starting
paragraph of the order awarding maintenance (whether interim or final, both) as to
whether the parties have complied with the aforesaid guidelines or not. If answer is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56078
Cr. R-3769 of 2025
12
‘no’, then to mention the circumstances in which the parties have failed to comply
with the same, so that adverse inference may be drawn against the
concerned/erring party.
22. Principal Registrar (J) is directed to place copy of this order before
Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice seeking approval for circulation among all the
Judicial Officers/Family Court Judges through the respective Principal District and
Sessions Judge of each District across the State of Madhya Pradesh to comply with
the directions given in the order, so as to avoid such/same mistakes in future.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/27/2026
11:20:30 AM
