Smt. Vijiya @ Vidhi Kedia vs. Shri Shirish Kedia

Facts

The applicants, Smt. Vijiya @ Vidhi Kedia and her minor son Hitansh, filed a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance. They were granted Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. 2,500/- each) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, vide an order dated 28.03.2024, in an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicants contended that the non-applicant (husband) had demanded dowry and subjected applicant No. 1 to mental and physical torture. They sought maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- each per month. The non-applicant denied the allegations, claiming he was subjected to cruelty and that applicant No. 1 left the house voluntarily. The Family Court awarded Rs. 2,500/- per month to each applicant.

Held

The Court held that the salary slips annexed by the non-applicant did not bear any seal or signature or GST number, thus not prima facie reflecting a registered company or its existence. However, the non-applicant's income tax return for 2023-24 showed an income of Rs. 2,88,580/-, approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, the Court emphasized considering the financial status, family background, and circumstances of the wife and children. The Court opined that the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 2,500/- each) seemed low. Consequently, the maintenance awarded to applicant No. 1 (wife) was enhanced to Rs. 7,500/-, making the total maintenance Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 7,500/- to wife + Rs. 2,500/- to child), payable from the date of the application (29.06.2021).

Key Issues

1. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is inadequate and requires enhancement, considering the financial status and family background of the parties, as per the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha? Arguments for the applicants: The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the impugned order suffers from impropriety, perversity, and incorrectness, and the maintenance amount awarded is on the lower side, being inadequate given the status of the parties. They prayed for a suitable enhancement. Arguments for the non-applicant: The learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that the Kedia Cloth Centre has been permanently closed, and the non-applicant is employed in a private company, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. They referred to salary slips and income tax returns for assessment years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 to substantiate their submission.