Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Rakesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Ji – Appellant
Versus
Manju Devi W/o Rakesh Sharma – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 599 of 2025
Decided On : 12-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the contested maintenance order. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding cruelty allegations and maintenance quantum. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. maintenance is for subsistence, not punitive or retrospective wealth accumulation. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. limits of dv act jurisdiction in adjudicating pending criminal allegations. (Para 7) |
| 5. maintenance should be effective from the date of order to prevent financial ruin. (Para 8) |
| 6. modification of maintenance orders and determination of final disposal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
GRIEVANCE
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as “BNSS”) has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.10/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner in proceedings arising out of an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “DV Act”) filed by respondent No.1, came to be partly allowed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before the learned ACJM No.4, Bikaner alleging cruelty, harassment and dowry demand against the petitioner-husband and his family members and sought protection, residence, maintenance and compensation. The petitioner and other respondents denied the allegations and contended that the respondent-wife had been residing separately since 16.08.2012 and had initiated false proceedings as a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. After recording evidence, the learned trial court vide order dated 27.02.2025 partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month, Rs.5,000/- towards accommodation and compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent-wife. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 29 of the DV Act was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide order dated 05.05.2025 whereby the maintenance amount was modified to Rs.10,000/- per month starting from 18.11.2014 i.e., the date of presentation of the application before the learned trial Court till 16.08.2018 being the date of the petitioner’s appointment in government service, while the remaining directions of the learned trial court were affirmed. Aggrieved by these orders, the present revision petition has been preferred before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSELS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below suffer from patent illegality, perversity and material irregularity inasmuch as the allegations of domestic violence and cruelty levelled by respondent No.1 were not substantiated by any cogent evidence. It was further contended that the respondent-wife had been residing separately of her own volition and had instituted false proceedings as a counterblast to the divorce petition preferred by the petitioner. Learned counsel further urged that prior to the year 2018, the petitioner had no stable source of income and, therefore, the direction to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the application is wholly arbitrary and excessive. It was also argued that the learned courts below failed to appreciate that certain respondents were residing separately and no specific allegations or evidence were available against them. On these premises, it was prayed that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
OBSERVATION
5. Heard learned counsel for the
The court affirmed that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is aimed at preventing destitution and should be awarded from the date of application to ensure timely support.
Maintenance awarded from the date of application must be reasonable and realistic. Applying a uniform, static amount retrospectively over several years is inequitable if the respondent's income fluct....
The Court emphasized the importance of awarding maintenance from the date of application in cases of domestic violence, as per the legal dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in modifying maintenance orders and the consideration of the financial status and obligations of the parties.
A wife must establish a prima facie case of domestic violence to be entitled to interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, considering both parties' financial statuses.
Interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is a provisional measure to prevent financial hardship, based on a broad assessment of parties' status, and is not a final determination of entitle....
Maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is supplementary to that under Section 125 of the CrPC, and previous awards must be disclosed and considered in subsequent claims.
Monthly maintenance is to be granted to wife and child from date of petition.
Monthly maintenance is to be granted to wife and child from date of petition.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
