Dismissed

Anwar Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2016CRLMP/2198/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of interim maintenance orders. Upholding the lower courts, the court held that maintenance is the legal and moral duty of the husband and affirmed the award of Rs.3000 per month in light of the wife's financial needs and alleged harassment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2198/2016 and Stay Application No.2227/2016 dismissed; interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- affirmed.

Anwar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

Crlmp2198/2016

¶2

// 1 //

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

¶6

S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.2198/2016 (With Stay Application No.2227/2016)

¶7

Anwar Khan Son of Shri Babu Khan, by caste Teli Musalman, Resident of Kaharpada Wair, Police Station Wair, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ...Petitioner-Husband

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ...Respondent

¶10

Foolbano Wife of Shri Anwar Khan, Daughter of Abdul Gaffar, aged about 20 years, by caste Musalman Resident of Khaddapada, Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli (Rajasthan) ...Respondent-Wife

¶11

Date of Order ::: 17.09.2016

¶12

Present

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶14

Mr. Kailash Katara, counsel for petitioner-husband Mr. A.D. Khan, Public Prosecutor, for respondent State ####

¶15

By the Court :-

¶16

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner-husband praying for quashment of orders dated 19.12.2015 and 10.03.2016. By order dated 19.12.2015, learned Civil Judge, Todabhim, District Karauli, awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to respondent-wife till the final disposal of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by order dated 10.03.2016, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, dismissed Criminal Revision No.17/2016 preferred by petitioner-husband aggrieved by order dated

¶17

Crlmp2198/2016

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

19.12.2015. Hence this petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner-husband contended that respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in her favour from petitioner-husband. That application was contested by petitioner-husband by filing reply thereto. The marriage of the petitionerhusband and respondent-wife took place 26.03.2012 as per the Muslim rituals. It is argued that respondentwife left the matrimonial home as per her own wishes, as she does not like petitioner-husband as he is not so handsome and that he also does not earn so much to expend on her lavishly. Petitioner-husband also made efforts to take respondent-wife back to her matrimonial home. It is further argued that petitioner-husband is an unskilled labour and hardly earns his livelihood. His monthly income is Rs.1500/- only, whereas respondent-wife earns handsome amount of Rs.25,000/per month by doing the work of stitching the clothes. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondent-wife is not entitled for any compensation and both the courts below have erred in awarding her interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this court is satisfied that learned court below has not committed any error or illegality in awarding monthly interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- to respondentwife, which has been rightly affirmed by learned revisional court. This is a meager sum and during high index prices in these days one even cannot satisfy his

¶22

Crlmp2198/2016

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

day to day expenses in this much amount, what to say luxury. Learned court below noted that there are allegations against petitioner-husband as also his family members of demand of dowry and harassment on that account and in that regard an F.I.R. No.19/2015 was also lodged at Police Station Todabhim against them at the instance of respondent-wife and that she has been compelled to leave the matrimonial home after subjecting her to beating for want of dowry. The learned court below is right in holding that it is the legal and moral duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain her legally wedded respondent-wife. This court does not find any ground to interfere therein.

¶25

In view of the above discussion, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. This also disposes of stay application.

¶26

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶27

//Jaiman//82

Anwar Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Suresh Kumar Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan through CBI

Sudhir Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar and Others

Virendra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Madan Bai and Ors. Vs Govind Singh Shrimal

Ganesh Bhakhar and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

M/S Anita Distributor Vs Dr Virendra Singh and Another