Priti Singh vs Dhruvraj Singh Rathore - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 1767

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Priti Singh (Smt.) - Appellant
Versus
Dhruvraj Singh Rathore and Another – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 933 of 2022 with S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 912 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Batra and Mr. Asbwin Garg (for wife).
For the Respondents: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia (for husband).

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 - Interim maintenance - The Trial Court awarded Rs. 35,000/- per month as interim maintenance to petitioner-wife, upheld by the Appellate Court - Petitioner claimed higher maintenance based on husband's capacity due to his qualifications and alleged income, while husband contended he was unemployed. The court emphasized the principle that the maintenance aims to ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution, highlighting the need for an appropriate standard of living based on the husband's income - Interim maintenance, subjected to final determination, was deemed justified considering the financial positions of both parties. (Paras 3, 21, 29)

Findings of Court:
The impugned order confirmed the maintenance amount after evaluating both parties' financial statuses and lifestyles, concluding that the set amount was not too meager.

Issues: The main questions revolved around the adequacy of the interim maintenance considering both parties' income statuses and the necessity of the wife to maintain her standard of living.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the objective of maintenance is to provide for the dependent spouse's standard of living, irrespective of their earning capacity, reinforcing that mere income cannot deny the claim.

Result: Criminal revision petitions dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a revision of interim maintenance awarded to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Trial Court had ordered Rs. 35,000/- per month, which was upheld by the Appellate Court (!) (!) .
The wife, Priti Singh, filed the application claiming that the husband, Dhruvraj Singh Rathore, was highly qualified, earning a substantial income, and belonging to a well-to-do family with multiple sources of income and assets. She contended that the amount awarded was insufficient for her maintenance needs (!) (!) (!) .
The husband claimed he was unemployed at the time of the order, with a minimal annual income reported in his income tax returns, and had no substantial sources of income. He also stated he owned agricultural land that was rain-dependent and engaged in property dealing and second-hand car sales (!) (!) (!) .
The wife is employed as a teacher earning approximately Rs. 28,200/- per month, which she considered while claiming her maintenance needs. The wife’s affidavit indicated her earning Rs. 37,700/- per month as a temporary school teacher (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent the dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution, and the quantum should reflect the standard of living of the husband, not solely his income (!) (!) .
The Court acknowledged that the husband’s income, assets, and lifestyle support the maintenance amount awarded, and that the amount was reasonable and justified given the circumstances. It also noted that the maintenance order is interim and subject to final determination (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that earning capacity or potential to earn does not automatically disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance, especially when the spouse is unable to maintain herself adequately (!) (!) .
The revision petitions filed by both parties—one for enhancement by the wife and one to quash the order by the husband—were dismissed, as the Court found no merit in interfering with the lower courts’ findings (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month was appropriate considering the financial positions and standard of living of both parties, and that the order was passed after due appreciation of all evidence and circumstances (!) .
All pending applications and stay requests were disposed of along with the main order (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.

Table of Content
1. common order on maintenance petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding maintenance amount (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 14 , 18)
3. income evidence and claims of parties (Para 6 , 10 , 13 , 19 , 22)
4. justification for interim maintenance and court finding (Para 20 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. dismissal of revision petitions (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

The present criminal revision petitions have been filed against the common order dated 31.5.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2022 (Smt. Priti Singh v. Dhruvraj Singh Rathore & Anr.) and in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2022 (Dhruvraj Singh Rathore & Anr. v. Priti Singh) whereby the Appellate Court upheld the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 324/2016.

2. The criminal misc. case No. 324/2016 was filed by the petitioner-Priti Singh against her husband-Dhruvraj under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005) in which interim maintenance was claimed by petitioner-wife.

3. Learned Trial Court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 35,000/- as interim maintenance to his wife-Priti.

4. Both the parties, aggrieved by the impugned order, have preferred these criminal revision petitions, Mrs. Priti for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance and Mr. Dhruvraj to quash and set aside the impugned order.

5. This is the second round of litigation between the parties Earlier also petitioner-wife had, under the same provision of the Act filed an application for interim maintenance which was decided by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and A Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 13.6.2014 and passed an order granting interim maintenance of 130,000/- per month in favour of petitioner-wife. However, this order was also challenged and the same was upheld in the appeal vide order dated 30.9.2016.

6. Both the parties had preferred criminal revision petitions as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2004/2016 [Dhruvraj Singh Rahtore v. Smt. Preeti Singh] and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2163/2016 [Smt. Preeti Singh v. Dhruvraj Singh Rathore]. These revision petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2017 and the matter was remitted back to learned Trial Court for deciding the matter afresh permitting the parties to produce affidavits as well as pertinent documents.

7. In compliance of the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by this Court, the parties submitted their affidavits regarding their source of income, assets and liabilities. After hearing both the parties learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2021, ordered to grant Rs. 35,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife, Priti Singh from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 15.5.2013.

8. This order was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2021. Hence, the present criminal revision petitions have been filed.

9. As per the brief facts of the case, the petitioner-Priti (hereinafter referred to as wife) filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 against her husband-Dhruvraj and mother-in-law Jyoti stating therein that the non-applicants were causing physical, mental and economic abuse to the petitioner-wife.

10. Allegedly, the respondent number 1, Dhruvraj (hereinafter referred to as the husband) was not giving any economic support to the petitioner-wife. It was submitted by the wife that the husband is highly qualified MBA graduate, who is working in a private company in Madhya Pradesh and is earning Rs. 75,000/- per month. It was also submitted that he belongs to a well-to-do family which has many sources of income

Click Here to Read the rest of this document