Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Rajesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Sanju And Others - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5822 of 2018
Decided On : 16-01-2019
Mr. Veerendra Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Meenakshi Pareek PP, for the Respondents
The distinction between interlocutory orders and orders affecting the rights of the parties is crucial in determining the adequacy of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Interpretation of interlocutory orders and their impact on rights of the parties
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to challenge the order enhancing maintenance for the respondent wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent wife and children was not excessive, considering the petitioner's salary as a Constable in the Rajasthan Police.
Issues: Interpretation of interlocutory orders, impact on rights of the parties, and the adequacy of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between interlocutory orders and orders affecting the rights of the parties, citing the judgment in Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, and concluded that the interim maintenance awarded was justified based on the petitioner's salary.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it lacked merits.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 11.6.2018 passed by learned Session Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby Criminal Revision No. 22/2018 preferred by the respondent aggrieved wife was allowed and maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- per month to 10,000/- per month.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment dated 31.8.2018 rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in Anshul Kulshreshtha v. Smt. Swarnima Kulshreshtha @ Soni , S.B. Cr. Revision No. 483/2018, to contend that against the interlocutory order, revision is not maintainable.
3. A perusal of the judgment rendered in Anshul Kulshreshtha (supra) reveals that the learned Single Judge of this Court had relied upon the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Amar Nath etc. v. State of Haryana etc., 1977 (4) SCC 137 . It may be noted that the judgment of Amar Nath etc (supra) relied in case of Anshul Kulshreshtha (supra) was specifically overruled by Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in case of Madhu Limaye v. The STate of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 (SC) 47 , wherein Their Lordhships made distinction between interlocutory order and orders which affect the rights of the parties. Therefore no reliance can be placed upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in Anshul Kulshreshtha (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner is posted as Constable in Rajasthan Police. The respondent wife and two minor children are dependent upon the petitioner. It may be noted that salary of a Constable in State of Rajasthan is not less than Rs. 35,000/-, therefore, the interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- awarded in favour of respondent wife and minor son and daughter aged six and five years respectively cannot be termed excessive. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
