A challengeto a high court order dated 13.6.2016 regarding a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance award. The petitioner sought to modify the retroactive effect of the maintenance order. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction.
The petition challenging the maintenance order under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION NO. 4880/2016.
Deepak Dangi S/o Shri Hoshiyar, by caste Rajput, R/o Pathanwada, Near Sohna Public School, Ward No.11, Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana).
Versus
Smt. Rajni, aged about 24 years W/o Deepak Dangi D/o Shri Ramesh Chand, by caste Rajput, R/o Mori Chhar Bagh, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.).
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Yogesh Singhal
For Respondent : Shri Anil Agrawal for
Shri V.S. Chauhan
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
5/7/2017
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 challenging the order dated 13.6.2016.
Learned State Counsel has submitted that by way of this petition petitioner is challenging the part of the order vide which maintenance has been awarded to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 25.7.2012 instead of the date of order dated 13.6.2016.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is unable to maintain herself. The trial court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it.
Petitioner and respondent got married on 18.5.2011. Respondent moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The said application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 13.6.2016. Trial court has granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rupees 3,500/- per month from the date of application. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Code to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted wives and children. The provision has a social object to achieve and cannot be described as punitive. The trial court in its wisdom has granted maintenance to the respondent under Section Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of the application. The jurisdiction exercised by the trial court does not call for any interference by this court as it does not suffer from the vice of illegality.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mrg.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in awarding maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of the application rather than the date of the order.
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to intervene in the maintenance order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Dangi
Smt. Rajni
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
