SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Ramchandra - Appellant
Vs.
State and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 192 of 2020 and 3559 of 2021
Decided On : 25-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :D.S. Thind, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A.R. Choudhary, PP.

The court emphasized the importance of effective implementation of maintenance grants and considered the financial positions of both parties in determining the maintenance amount.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - 11.12.2019, 24.02.2021 - The court discussed the determination of monthly maintenance to the respondent No. 2-wife, the penal order for effective implementation of the maintenance grant, and the failure of the petitioner-husband in payment of arrears of the maintenance amount.

Fact of the Case:

The case pertains to a matrimonial dispute where the respondent No. 2-wife sought monthly maintenance due to alleged ill-treatment and harassment by her husband and in-laws. The petitioner-husband approached the court against the determination of the maintenance amount and the consequential order due to his default in payment of arrears.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent-wife was not having any definite and regular source of income, and the evidence given by her was not controverted by the petitioner-husband. The court also upheld the penal order for effective implementation of the maintenance grant.

Issues: The issues involved the determination of monthly maintenance, the petitioner-husband's failure in payment of arrears, and the respondent-wife's source of income.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the respondent-wife's lack of definite income, the petitioner-husband's failure to provide evidence to support his claims, and the need for effective implementation of the maintenance grant.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and upheld the impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 and 24.02.2021.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. Though the matter (revision petition No. 192/2020) was listed before this Court in regard to service of respondent No. 2- wife, but the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband insisted that the matter may be heard finally at this stage, without service upon the respondent No. 2.

2. Ordinarily, the Court could not have accepted such a request, but on a perusal of the record as well as upon hearing the preliminary submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of service upon respondent No. 2 was not felt necessary, as on merits, the matter was tilting in favour of the respondent No. 2-wife.

3. As regards Misc. Petition No. 3559/2021, the previous order-sheets shows that Mr. D.K. Gaur, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2-wife. However, today on 23.05.2022, when the matter was listed, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. -2 wife, even in the second round.

4. The present criminal revision petition No. 192/2020 (initially filed as criminal misc. petition) and criminal misc. petition No. 3559/2021 have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Revision Pet. No. 192/2020:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the order impugned dated 11.12.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 259/2017 granting maintenance to the respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month may kindly be quashed and set aside"

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3559/2021:

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the proceedings pending before the Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 10/2020 (Mamta v. Ramchandra) including order dated 24.02.2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and in alternative the learned court below may kindly be directed not to arrest the petitioner till the petitioner's application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is decided."

5. As the record of the case would reveal, the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute, wherein the respondent No. 2-wife on count of the alleged ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of her husband (present petitioner) and her in-laws, in connection with the alleged demand of dowry, is living separately, and thus, by filing an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned court below, she had sought an appropriate and adequate amount of monthly maintenance; the same has been awarded by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019; against such determination of the monthly maintenance amount and the consequential order passed by the learned court below, owing to the default on the part of the petitioner-husband in payment of arrears of the maintenance amount, the petitioner-husband has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that even earlier an ex-parte order dated 27.04.2019 was passed in favour of the respondent No. 2-wife by the learned court below, on her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while granting her a monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-; against which the present petitioner-husband preferred a criminal misc. petition bearing No. 3876/2019, whereupon this Hon'ble Court, while quashing and setting aside the said ex-parte order of maintenance, remanded the matter back to the learned court below, for deciding the same afresh.

6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after remand of the matter, in a short span of time, the learned court below heard the matter finally and vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019, the learned court below increased the amount of monthly maintenance to be payable by the petitioner-husband to the respondent No. 2-wife, from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, which is on a much higher side, and thus, unreasonable, looki

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top