Dismissed

Mandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2021CRLMP/862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner husband filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash interim maintenance orders awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against him. Granted

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quash of interim maintenance orders is dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to raise issues at the time of final maintenance decision.

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 862/2021

¶3

Mandeep Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Kamboj Sikh, R/o Chak 7 Jb, Jaitsar, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Satnam Kaur W/o Mandeep Singh D/o Arjun Singh, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Kamboj Sikh, R/o Basanti Chowk, Setiya Farm, Hardeep Singh Colony, Sriganganagar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi PP

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

Reserved on 05/08/2021 Pronounced on 11/08/2021

¶13

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶14

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

¶15

“It is, therefore humbly prayed that this Misc. Petition U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. of the Petitioner may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 01.07.2019 and 12.01.2021 to the extent of granting Rs.10,000/- Rs. p.m. as maintenance passed by Learned Family Court, Sriganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.101/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-862/2021]

¶18

Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent No.2-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Sriganganagar, whereupon a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the learned court below vide order dated 01.07.2019.

¶19

The present petitioner-husband thereafter, challenged the aforementioned order by way of filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which however, was rejected by the learned Family Court, to the extent of grant of interim maintenance, vide order dated 12.01.2021.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforementioned order dated 01.07.2019 was unlawfully passed ex parte against the present petitioner, as he was not served with the notice, as per the procedure prescribed by law, and thus, the learned court below ought to have recalled the said ex parte order, also on the ground that the petitioner is suffering the maintenance, in light of the fact that he is a disabled person and there is no source of income to him.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, submitted that the impugned order granting interim maintenance to the respondentwife deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the misc. petition.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the impugned orders passed by the learned court below, this Court finds that the order dated 01.07.2019 under challenge is merely of granting interim

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-862/2021]

¶26

maintenance and the petitioner already has a liberty to represent his cause at the time of decision on final maintenance.

¶27

This Court also finds that the milk and agricultural income, as pointed out before the learned court below, justifies the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.2-wife. Moreover, the service of notice upon the present petitioner, through his father, cannot be said to be an incomplete service, as has rightly been observed by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 12.01.2021. Thus, at this stage, this Court does not find any reason to make interference in the proceedings pending before the learned court below.

¶28

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up all his issues at the time of decision on the final maintenance before the learned court below, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶30

SKant/-

Mandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Dhala Ram Vs State

Smt Tasleem Bano Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State

Ravindra Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Chananmal Vs State

M/S Hada Marbles and Minerals Vs State of Rajasthan