Disposed

Om Prakash v. Smt Amita and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2018CRLMP/3943/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application for early listing of a petition against an interim maintenance order. The court refused interference, holding that the wife's ability to maintain herself must be decided by the Family Court after evaluating evidence during final proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without interference; the court directed the Family Court to decide the Section 125 proceedings expeditiously.

Om Prakash Vs Smt Amita and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Application Criminal No. 296 / 2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3943/2017

¶5

Om Prakash S/o Shri Jethuram, By caste Suthar, R/o 960A, 12^th Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Smt Amita W/o Shri Om Prakash D/o Shri Bhuraram Nenuram Mistri, by Caste Suthar.

¶9

Khushbu D/o Shri Om Prakash, by caste Suthar minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Amita.

¶10

Both are resident of B-5, Atmaram Society, near Mehsana Nagar, Garba Ground, Nizampura, Vadodra.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Saraswat

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶15

Order

¶16

08/05/2018

¶17

The matter comes up for consideration of application (APPLR No.296/2018) preferred on behalf of the petitioner for early listing of the criminal misc. petition.

¶18

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and decided today itself.

¶19

Vide this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘court below’) in the pending proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the court below has directed the petitioner to pay interim

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[APPLR-296/2018]

¶22

maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.2 respectively.)

¶23

Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is his minor daughter. The court below has taken into consideration the fact that the respondents are residing separately from the petitioner from quite a long time. The court below has also taken into consideration that the respondent No.1 has alleged that as she is being treated by the petitioner with cruelty, she cannot live with him.

¶24

The court below after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- to the respondents.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 is capable to maintain herself and the respondent No.2 as she is the owner of the General and Provisional Store in Vadodra.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a bank account statement of the respondent No.1 and has submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent No.1 is at present having deposit of around Rs.41 lac. It is also submitted that when the respondent is able to maintain herself, the court below has grossly erred in ordering for paying interim maintenance to the respondents.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed this criminal misc. petition and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[APPLR-296/2018]

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I do not find any case for interference. Whether respondent No.1 is having sufficient source of income to maintain herself is the question which can only be decided after looking into the evidence by the court below at the time of the final decision of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶31

With these observations, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of.

¶32

However, it is expected that the court below shall decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously.

¶33

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

¶34

Taruna

Om Prakash v. Smt Amita and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. Smt Amita 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

Apeshwar Credit Co. Ope.Soc.Ltd Vs State and Ors.

Anup Khati @ Kaliya Vs State

Anup Khati @ Kaliya Vs State

Manoj Vs State

Matiya Kumawat and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Narain Singh Vs State and Ors.