HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2021

Rajkumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About

30 Years, R/o 22 Subham Baaglog Society, Rupra Godown, Bithal

Nagar, Takeron, Jasoda Chokdi, Ahemdabad, Gujart

----Petitioner/Non-Applicant

Versus

Sikha Sharma W/o Shri Raj Kumar Sharma D/o Shri Pradeep

Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House No. 71, Kalyan

Nagar Iii Tonk Road, Sanganer P.S. Sanganer Jaipur

----Respondent/Applicant

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma through

VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Prahalad Sharma for respondent

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

Order

12/07/2021

Petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition

under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the

order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan First (Head Quarter

Sanganer) (for short “the Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.

32/2020 whereby the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal

filed by the petitioner maintained the judgment dated 18.02.2020

passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate

No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan (Head Quarter Sanganer) in regular

case No. 291/2019 (for short “the trial Court”) whereby the

learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 30,000/- per

(2 of 2)

[CRLR-573/2021]

month as interim maintenance to respondent-applicant along with

her minor daughter.

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties

and perused the material placed before the Court.

The respondent-applicant filed application for interim

maintenance on the ground that non-applicant husband is highly

qualified and produced some salary statement slips before the

learned trial Court. On this application both the Courts below have

come to the conclusion that respondent-wife of the petitioner/non-

applicant is entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- per month and Rs.

10,000/- per month for minor daughter as interim maintenance

under Section 12 of the Domestic Voilence Act, 2005.

This court does not find any ground to interfere in the

concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the main

application within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this order without being influenced from the order passed

on interim maintenance application.

Revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

Ritu/18