Allowed

Pukhraj v. Smt Laxmi Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2018CRLMP/846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged trial court order closing Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings due to alleged failure to deposit interim maintenance. High Court held non-payment for majority son justified non-compliance. Allowed petition, reopened proceedings, and fixed reduced interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. closed by trial court on 14.12.2017 are reopened; petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/month to Respondent 1.

Pukhraj Vs Smt Laxmi Devi and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 846/2018

¶3

Pukhraj S/o Sh. Devaji, age about 58 years, By Caste Teli, R/o V/p Jojawar, Siriyari, Teh. Marwar Jn., District Pali.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Sh. Pukhraj , By Caste Teli

¶7

Prabhulal S/o Sh. Pukhraj , By Caste Teli, Both Are R/o Bagad Police Station Devgarh, District Rajsamand.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R. Rawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

13/08/2018

¶13

Learned counsel Mr.Sudhir Saruparia is appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Service is, therefore, complete.

¶14

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the ACJM, Devgarh, Distt. Rajsamand (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby, the trial court has finally decided the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner while observing that the petitioner has not deposited the interim maintenance amount as per the directions given by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.930/2015 decided on 16.12.2015 and, therefore, the earlier order passed by the Family Court on 12.3.2014 is come into force.

¶15

It is noticed that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C., however,

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CRLMP-846/2018]

¶18

the said proceedings were decided ex parte against the petitioner vide order dated 12.3.2014. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.930/2015, which was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2015 and this Court has ordered that the proceedings of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which were undertakn against the petitioner ex parte, shall be reopened from the stage when the proceedings were made ex parte. It has further ordered that the petitioner shall pay Rs.4,000/- per month in all to the respondents by way of interim maintenance from the date of this order. It is also observed that the petitioner shall deposit monthly maintenance in the trial court by 10^th of each month, failing which, the order whereby the ex parte proceedings have been reopened shall be rescinded.

¶19

After reopening of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the matter was pending in the trial court whereby, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 with a prayer for disposal of the said proceedings on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the directions given by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.930/2015 decided on 16.12.2015 as he as not deposited the interim maintenance amount in time.

¶20

The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties has closed the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while observing that the petitioner had to pay Rs.92,000/- to the respondents as interim maintenance as per the directions of the High Court but he has deposited only Rs.80,000/- and, therefore, as per the order passed by this Court on 16.12.2015, the proceedings are liable to be closed and the earlier order passed by the Family Court on 12.3.2014 is revived.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CRLMP-846/2018]

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has not made any default of payment of interim maintenance amount at any point of time and has deposited the said amount in time. It is also contended that the variations in respect of payment of interim maintenance had occurred because during the pendency of the proceedings the respondent No.2, his son had attained majority and his part of interim maintenance has not been paid by the petitioner.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as the petitioner has not complied with the directions given by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.930/2015, the trial court has rightly closed the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the variations in respect of payment of interim maintenance amount had occurred on account of non payment of interim maintenance amount to the respondent No.2 who attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has deliberately not complied with the directions given by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.930/2015.

¶26

Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The proceedings of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner finally decided by the trial court vide order dated 14.12.2017 are ordered to be reopened from the stage when the order impugned is passed.

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CRLMP-846/2018]

¶29

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner shall make payment of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 from the month of January, 2018. The interim maintenance amount due from January, 2018 to August, 2018 shall be paid to the respondent No.1 by 30^th August, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner shall deposit the monthly interim maintenance amount in the trial court by 10^th day of each month till the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are finally decided.

¶30

It is made clear that if any default is made by the petitioner in paying the interim maintenance as directed above, the order dated 12.3.2014 passed by the Family Court, Rajsamand will automatically be revived.

¶31

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶32

ms rathore

Pukhraj v. Smt Laxmi Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pukhraj v. Smt Laxmi Devi and Ors.

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

Dilip Kumar Vs State and Anr.

Narayan Singh Vs State

Rajesh Gaur Vs State and Anr.

Himanshu Bagri Vs State

Naresh @ Gullu and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State and Ors.