Partly allowed

Dayal Prasad Vyas v. Smt Divya Swaroop Vyas and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2018CRLR/1369/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revised an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting Rs. 14,000/month to two daughters, deeming it excessive against the father's Rs. 31,000 income. Court reduced the award to Rs. 10,000/month cumulatively and imposed it on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The maintenance awarded to the respondents No. 2 and No. 3 is modified from Rs. 7,000 each to Rs. 5,000 per month each, i.e., Rs. 10,000 cumulatively.

Dayal Prasad Vyas Vs Smt Divya Swaroop Vyas and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1369 / 2017

¶3

Dayal Prasad Vyas S/o Sh. Anirudh Kumar Vyas, B/c Hindu, R/o 4- E-26, Jai Narayan Vyas Nagar, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt Divya Swaroop Vyas W/o Shri Dayal Prasad Vyas (Daughter of Anand Swaroop), B/c Hindu, R/o 5 C, 102, Jai Narayan Vyas Nagar, Bikaner.

¶7

Su. Sri Natasha D/o Dayal Prasad Vyas (Ex-Minor) Through Guardian Mother Smt. Divya Swaroop Vyas W/o Shri Dayal Prasad Vyas, R/o 5 C, 102, Jai Narayan Vyas Nagar, Bikaner.

¶8

Su. Sri Somya D/o Dayal Prasad Vyas (Minor) Through Guardian Mother Smt. Divya Swaroop Vyas W/o Shri Dayal Prasad Vyas, R/o 5 C, 102, Jai Narayan Vyas Nagar, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishabh Handa

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Khiyani.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶13

Order

¶14

23/02/2018

¶15

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge order dated 5^th of October, 2017 passed by Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned Court below’). By the order impugned, learned Court below, while partly accepting application of the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- to respondent No.2 (daughter of petitioner) and Rs.7,000/- to respondent No.3 (minor daughter of petitioner) per mensem.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CRLR-1369/2017]

¶18

During pendency of the application, first respondent wife has not pressed her claim for maintenance.

¶19

It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that amount of maintenance for two daughters cumulatively to the tune of Rs.14,000/- determined and awarded by learned Court below is excessive and exorbitant inasmuch as there was no cogent proof about income of petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that old parents of the petitioner are also dependent on him and therefore with his limited resources he is facing great hardship to meet both the ends. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that before learned Court below monthly income of the petitioner was proved to the tune of Rs.31,000/-only still the Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs.14,000/-, which is improper and infirm, merits interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the amount of maintenance determined by the learned Court below for the daughters including one minor daughter, is just and reasonable warranting interference. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in the present era of inflation, amount of maintenance quantified and awarded by the learned Court below cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant, more particularly, when evidence was available on record that both the daughters are living in destitution.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CRLR-1369/2017]

¶23

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and also gone through the materials available on record.

¶24

There remains no quarrel that Section 125 Cr.P.C. postulates maintenance for wife, children and parents if they are not having sufficient means to maintain themselves. Provision for maintenance is a measure of social justice to provide some solace to women and children with the solemn object to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

¶25

Being father of both the children i.e. daughters, it is legal, moral, social and pious obligation of the petitioner to maintain them, and therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Court has committed any error in exercising discretion for grant of maintenance to them.

¶26

As regards quantum of maintenance determined by learned Court below, suffice it to observe that considering monthly income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.31,000/-, amount of Rs.14,000/- appears to be excessive and therefore the same deserves interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶27

In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account prevailing inflatory trends, in my considered

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CRLR-1369/2017]

¶30

opinion, the amount of maintenance can be appropriately determined/quantified by this Court. The Court feels that the amount of maintenance may be reasonably quantified which may be adequate for both the wards but not excessive in the light of income of the petitioner. Therefore, in totality of the circumstances, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order and modify the same by slashing Rs.4,000/- so as to award maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month for each of the daughters i.e. cumulatively Rs.10,000/-.

¶31

It is expected that the petitioner shall regularly pay maintenance as determined by this Court to respondents No.2 & 3.

¶32

The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed as indicated above.

¶33

a.asopa/-57

Dayal Prasad Vyas v. Smt Divya Swaroop Vyas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayal Prasad Vyas v. Smt Divya Swaroop Vyas 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

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Smt. Beenu Kanwar and Ors.

Boota Singh Vs Dist. Collector Cum C.S.C., Sgnr., and Ors.

Jawahar Chawla and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Icici Lombard Gen. Insu. Co. and Anr. Vs Kanhaiya Lal Tak

Kesar Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Panna Lal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.