Partly allowed

Sheetal Kumar v. Karishma Jain

Rajasthan HC27 May 2019CRLMP/2144/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that the Family Court correctly awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month. The High Court remanded the main case for trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; main case remanded to trial court for disposal within six months; stay petition disposed of.

Sheetal Kumar Vs Karishma Jain — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2144/2019

¶3

Sheetal Kumar S/o Bhuri Lal Jain, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Room No 14, 3^rd Floor, Building No 30, 14^th Lane, Kamathipura , Mumbai

¶4

Versus

¶5

Karishma Jain D/o Sheetal Kumar Jain, Aged About 21 Years, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother, Smt Rekha Jain D/o Pannalal Jain (Bohra), R/o House No 684, Behind Manbai Hospital, Sikkh Colony , Hiran Magri Sec. No 11 Udaipur (Raj.) (Title mentioned as in the Petition filed Before the learned Court Below)

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Varsha Purohit on behalf of Mr.Deelip Kawadia, Adv.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶9

Order

¶10

27/05/2019

¶11

Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the respondent- Kumari Karishma Jain and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to her as interim maintenance.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court is on higher side as the petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount of

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CRLMP-2144/2019]

¶15

interim maintenance to the respondents, therefore the same may be reduced.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned as also other material available no record.

¶17

From the perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the learned Family Court after taking into consideration all the material available before it, has rightly awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Thus, the order impugned does not warrant any interference from this Court. The Family Court has only awarded interim maintenance to the respondent. The main case is still pending before the Family Court.

¶18

Therefore, the trial court is directed to decide the main case pending before it after considering all the documents filed by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay petition is also disposed of.

¶20

The copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately.

¶21

130-NK/-

Sheetal Kumar v. Karishma Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetal Kumar v. Karishma Jain

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

Bhikha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Singh @ Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Singh Vs State

Narsa Ram and Ors. Vs the State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Abhishek Vs State of Rajasthan

Sikandar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan