Synopsis Part-2

Synopsis:

The Constitution of India, under Article 136  vests the honourable Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant leave to appeal against any judgement or order or decree in any matter or cause passed or made by the court/tribunal in the territory of India. Thus, this special leave petition is filed in the honourable Supreme Court against the impunged order of the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur  to dismiss the criminal revisional no. 587 of 2020 under section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance to respondent Smt. Megha Khare.

The case of Shri Shived Saxena, Petitioner V. Smt. Megha Saxena, Respondent, which was dismissed by honourable high court of Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 587 of 2020 is  outlined  before honourable Supreme Court in nutshell as:

1. That, the petitioner Shri Shived Saxena is legally wedded husband of respondent Smt. Megha Khare.

2. That the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena challenged the validity of order dated 05.09.2019 in honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District- Jabalpur in MJCR No.849/2018  whereby the application for grant of interim maintenance has been decided in favour of respondent, Smt. Megha Khare and petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena has been directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month by family court, Jabalpur.

Thus, it is to be apprised in Special leave petition filed in honourable Supreme Court that the impugned order of honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has erred to consider the true facts of this maintenance case of Shri Shived Saxena, Petitioner V. Smt. Megha Saxena, Respondent and the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has not considered the evidences to rebut the affidavit of respondent, Smt. Megha Khare in compliance with the Rajnesh V. Neha judgement of honourable Supreme Court in which it is mentioned that both petitioner and respondent will submit affidavit bonafidely.

The facts has been mentioned in grounds of special petition leave that Smt. Megha Saxena has made false allegations against the petitioner Shri, Shived Saxena only to get maintenance after the death of her father and after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, Restitution of conjugal rights. 

According to judgement of honourable Supreme Court in case law of  'Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003' , the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty, and the court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise.

The petitioner has objected if it is not actus reus to claim unfair maintenance, putting false allegations on the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.

In accordance with the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena, the relationship between husband and wife is made by God and can not be broken.

In conformity with legal maxim 'et uxor consentur in lege una persona," a husband and wife are regarded in law as one person.

The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena, is stunned why the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare, has left home after the death of her father and she made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The petitioner Shri Shived Saxena would like to pray to honourable Supreme Court that either the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare will prove that petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena has performed cruelty with respondent, Smt. Megha Khare and if respondent proves that the cruelty has been performed by petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena, the petitioner is agreed to provide maintenance to respondent, Smt. Megha Saxena otherwise considering the value of marriage and wife in life, the petitioner would like to pray to honourable Supreme Court to order the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to live happily with petitioner Shri Shived Saxena under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and ask respondent, Smt. Megha Khare if she got married with petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena in coercion of her father because she left her husband(petitioner)suddenly after the death of her father putting false allegations on her husband(petitioner) after receiving the notice of Section 9, restitution of conjugal rights of Hindu Marriage Act. 

So, the petitioner would like to know if it is not unlawful to get the maintenance from the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena(Husband) despite false allegations by the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare (wife) after receiving the notice of Section 9, restitution of conjugal rights of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Smt. Megha Khare is well- educated  and her qualifications are BBA, B.Ed., and MBA. She has been demanding maintenance from petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena(husband) after she left home, making false allegations against him after receiving notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, and she did so after the death of her father. Smt. Megha Saxena also worked before and after marriage, but now she is not doing job in spite of being well-educated. 

In accordance with the legal maxim' Nemo punitur pro aliento delicto',  no one is punished for the crime of another. So, if respondent , Smt. Megha Khare made false allegations against her husband(petitioner) after receiving the notice of Section 9 , restitution of conjugal rights of Hindu Marriage Act and demands maintenance without proving the cruelty on herself, is her crime, and the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena should not be punished for her crime, and he should not be bound to provide maintenance. 

The petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena, has lot of expectations from the honourable Supreme court that he will get justice from the honourable Supreme court because, according to the legal maxim ' Rex quod injustum est facere non potest' the king cannot do what is unjust.

Thus, in this special petition leave, it is prayed by petitioner to the honourable Supreme Court of India to order the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to live happily with the petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, if she is not able to prove cruelty on herself, and the petitioner would like to know the reason why she did so after the death of her father and after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and also wants to know if the marriage has been performed under the coercion of her father. 

The petitioner would like to pray to the honourable Supreme Court that it would be injustice to petitioner to order for maintenance if the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare, has not proved the allegations of cruelty on herself by petitioner and she left home after the death of her father and she made false allegations on petitioner, Shri Shived Saxena after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights even if the petitioner has tried his best to prove that the allegations made by the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare were false and have been mentioned in the grounds of this special leave petition. Smt. Megha Khare is also well-educated. 

Apart from latest judgment by Honourable Supreme Court of Rajnesh V. Neha, there are some other judgements by Honourable High Courts and Family Courts whereby the honourable courts have safeguarded husband from unfair maintenance claim by wife when they were making false allegations against their husbands as well as when they were well-educated to maintain themselves.

The catena of these case laws when the unfair claim of maintenance by the wife has been dismissed is mentioned herewith below:

·       Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 234 (2016) DLT 693.

·       Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012.

·       Biswajit Murmu & Anr vs The State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) on 29 July, 2015.

·       Smt. Mamta Jaiswal V. Rajesh Jaiswal on 24th March, 2000.

·       Smt. Pramila Bhatia vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 19 May, 2000 on Rajasthan High Court, page no. 362.

·       Sudhir Gupta v. Maniha Kumari @ Manisha Gupta [ CRL.M.C. 1117/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5684/2021.

·       Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen SLP (Crl) 7924 of 2008 .

·       Bhagwan V. Kamla Devi(AIR 1975 SC 83 )

·       Dr. E. Shanthi vs Dr. H.K. Vasudev on 22 August, 2005 ,Karnataka High Court.

·       Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

·       Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

·       Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798.

·       Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

·        Criminal Revision No. 467 of 3017, Smt Khushi @ Samiksha V. Ankit, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 28th February, 2020.