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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 2129

SANDEEP MEHTA
Shakti Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pinki – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Ms. Deepika Purohit, for the Appellant; Mr. Arun Kumar, PP, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Shakti Singh for assailing the order dated 11.2.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.366/15 whereby, the application preferred by the respondents Pinki and Daksh, being the wife and son respectively of the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was accepted and the petitioner was directed to make payment of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife Pinki and Rs.2,000/- to his minor son Daksh.

2. Ms. Deepika Purohit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and unjustified. The petitioner himself is a lowly paid employee in the Bhoomi Vikas Bank and draws a meager salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and as such, there was no justification for the court below to have awarded excessive maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to the two respondents.

3. I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.

4. The respondent Smt. Pinki set up a clear case in her application that she was harassed and humilia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top