The absence of required affidavits and unreasoned court orders in maintenance cases necessitates compliance with judicial guidelines for fair adjudication.

Order

18/08/2025

1. The present revision petitions have been filed, being aggrieved against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Judge Family Court, Jaisalmer in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.10/2023 (Smt. Sarita Soni v. Ravindra Kumar), whereby the application filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed while directing the husband - Ravindra Kumar to pay a monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- to the wife - Sarita from the date of the filing of the application, i.e. from 18.09.2023.

2. The wife (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner” for the sake of convenience) has filed the revision petition in question praying for enhancement of the amount and on the other hand the husband (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” for the sake of convenience) has filed the revision petition challenging the order granting maintenance.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.12.2021 At the time of marriage, her father, according to his capacity, gave various ornaments and other articles however, the respondent- husband, at the instance of his family members, regularly used to harass and victimize the petitioner for demand of dowry and committed cruelty time and again upon the petitioner for the above-mentioned purpose.

4. The petitioner further submitted that, due to the cruelty meted out to her, she had lodged a criminal case against the respondent-husband and further stated that since last one year the respondent has created circumstances, making it impossible for her to reside with him and thus she was staying with her father and mother. The petitioner further stated that she was not earning anything and the respondent was having the earning of Rs.20,000/- per month and even her mother was getting pension from B.S.F. services. She further stated that the respondent was having two murabas of irrigated land. The petitioner thus prayed for a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.

5. The respondent on the other hand in reply to the application filed by the petitioner, while denying all the submissions stated that the petitioner had wrongly filed the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He further submitted that he was ill and unemployed and that his family members were taking care of his own maintenance. He further admitted that mother was receiving pension but stated that pension was nominal. He further stated that he was paralytic for which treatment was going on at various hospitals and thus was not in a position to undertake any work. He thus asserted that in view of the above-mentioned fact the petitioner was not entitled for grant of any maintenance.

6. In support of the averments made by the petitioner, the petitioner filed her affidavit and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for respondent, wherein she denied the respondent suffering from any illness and stated that he was taking care of the agricultural land. She further stated that she was 10^th pass and used to do all domestic chores and was not having any knowledge of stitching etc.

7. In support of his reply, the respondent had filed his affidavit wherein he was also cross-examined and he admitted the fact of the criminal case lodged by the petitioner against him. He further admitted that his mother was taking care of the agricultural land owned by them and also admitted that his father was working in the B.S.F. and post his death the pension was received by his mother. He further admitted that he was staying with his mother. The respondent further exhibited six documents, being the medical prescriptions pertaining to his treatment.

8. Strangely, in spite of the authoritative