Remanded

Smt Alka Rani v. Devendra Khandelwal

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2015CRLR/126/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the impugned order directing maintenance payments for a minor child because the lower court failed to decide if the petitioner was earning or if she participated in the examination. The matter was remanded to decide these questions, though the maintenance for the child was deemed to remain in tact.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.12.2014 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to decide earning status and participation in examination.

Smt Alka Rani Vs Devendra Khandelwal — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.126/2015 S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Application No. 276/2015 (Smt. Alka Rani Versus Devendra Khandelwal) Date of Order :: 4^th September, 2015

¶2

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Chhitlar, counsel for the respondent

¶3

This revision petition has been filed by the

¶4

petitioner against the judgment/order dated 11.12.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 96/2014 (242/2014), whereby he partly allowed the appeal and while modifying the judgment/order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the trial court, directed the respondenthusband to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the petitioner-wife for the maintenance of his minor son from the date of filing the appeal, with the following prayer:

¶5

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this revision petition and record of the entire case may be called for from the courts below and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Cr. Revision No. 96/2014 (242/2014) and order dated 25.2.2014 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Cr. Misc. Case No. 257/2010 titled Alka Versus Devendra & Ors. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and be further pleased to allow the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in toto.”

¶6

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on

¶7

record.

¶8

I am of the view that the court below has not decided the question (1) as to whether the petitioner is earning or not; and (2) whether the non petitioner had permitted the petitioner to participate in the examination of PTI or not?

¶9

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment/order dated 11.12.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 96/2014 (242/2014) is quashed and set-aside and matter is remanded to the Court below with the direction to decide the matter qua aforesaid questions. However, the direction given by the Court below regarding payment of Rs. 5000/- by the respondent-husband will remain in tact because the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent-husband is regularly paying Rs. 5000/- per month for the maintenance of child and he will regularly pay the aforesaid amount for the maintenance of his child.

¶10

Learned counsel for both the parties have requested to this Court that the date should be fixed for their appearance before the Court below. In such circumstances, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 5^th October, 2015.

¶11

The revision petition as well as the stay application, both stand disposed of accordingly.

¶12

( Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J .

¶13

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶14

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Smt Alka Rani v. Devendra Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Alka Rani v. Devendra Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Singh Meena Vs Shri Atul Garg and Another

Subhash Urf Kanchhya Urf Luchya Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jagdish Prasad through Lrs Vs Smt Kanta Saini and Others

Ravindra Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajesh Akar Vs M/S Eden Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Ors.

Rajendra Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.