The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order awarding Rs. 2,000/- monthly maintenance to the wife and Rs. 3,000/- to the son, holding that no interference was warranted.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2904/2013
Pradeep Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Santosh Kunwar And Anr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Richin Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/01/2019
The application for early hearing is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming following relief:-
‘It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the maintenance to the son which is Rs. 3000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made vehement submissions only opposing the maintenance to the wife which is Rs. 2000/- per month.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-2904/2013]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason why the respondents No. 1 & 2 are living separately and the statements before the learned court below clearly indicates that the matrimonial home has been abandoned by the respondent No. 1 by her own voluntary action. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown from the impugned order the point of dispute regarding in laws particularly mother in law of the respondent No. 1.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner is a government servant retiring from the post of LDC and is well established and, therefore, the mere maintenance of Rs. 2000/- would not impact him and in the given circumstances, the impugned order is justified.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the reasons recorded by the learned court below are sufficient to uphold the legality of the order impugned. The petitioner being a government servant would not face any difficulty in giving maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to his wife and moreover the allegation of respondent No. 1 leaving matrimonial home voluntarily is a disputed question of fact in which the allegation of cruelty against the respondent are also there.
In light of aforesaid observations, this court does not find any reason to make any interference in the order, hence, dismissed.
(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
ns.15-1/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allowance of Rs. 2,000/- monthly maintenance to the wife under the impugned order should be set aside.
Whether the petitioner as a retired government servant faces financial difficulty in complying with the maintenance order.
Pradeep Singh
Santosh Kunwar
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
