Dismissed

Sumitra Singh W/O Omendra Singh D/O Hanuman Singh Hapawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2022SAW/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed an appeal against an order enforced monthly maintenance deduction from a respondent husband's retiral benefits and pension to clear past dues and secure future payments in the petitioner wife's bank account.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Single Judge order maintaining the machinery for maintenance deduction stands affirmed.

Sumitra Singh W/O Omendra Singh D/O Hanuman Singh… — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 24/2022

¶3

Sumitra Singh W/o Omendra Singh D/o Hanuman Singh Hapawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 98, Bandhu Nagar, Opp. Bus Depot, Sikar Road, Murlipura, Jaipur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Engineer (Admn.), Public Health Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan, Jacob Road 2, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

¶8

Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, District Circle, Jaipur.

¶9

Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

Omendra Singh Hapawat S/o Late Kishan Singh Hapawat, R/o Village Kali Pahadi, Charanwas, Via Achrol, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Davessar through VC Mr. Goverdhan Singh through VC Mr. Prameshwar Lal through VC For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

24/01/2022

¶16

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner who is wife of respondent No.5. There are disputes between husband and wife relating to maintenance dues filed by the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The concerned Court had initially fixed monthly

¶17

(2 of 3) [SAW-24/2022]

¶18

maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of wife which was enhanced by order dated 15.07.2019 passed under Section 127 CrPC to Rs.11,000/-. The respondent No.5 was a Government servant opted for voluntary retirement upon which the question of recovery of monthly maintenance became difficult. The petitioner therefore approached this Court and prayed that the retiral benefits of the respondent No.5 such as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. may not be released and he may be directed to pay the maintenance amount by depositing it directly in the bank account of the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Single Judge disposed of this petition by impugned order dated 20.12.2021 giving following directions:-

¶20

“In view of the submission made by learned counsels for the respective parties, this writ petition is allowed in following terms:-

¶21

(I) the respondents No.5 shall be paid his retiral benefits by the official respondents deducting the entire amount of maintenance due till the date of payment @ 11,000/- per month and shall deposit the same in the bank account of the petitioner as per order dated 15.01.2019. As agreed between the parties, the maintenance is due since May 2021.

¶22

(II) the amount of monthly maintenance shall be deducted from the pension payable to the respondent No.5 every month and shall be deposited in the bank account of the petitioner.”

¶23

Thus, as per this order the respondent No.5 not only has to clear the past dues of maintenance, even the prospective maintenance would be paid to the petitioner by deducting it from the pension payable to respondent No.5. Thus all legal anxieties of the petitioner are taken care of. We may recall the first prayer of the petitioner was for freezing the retiral benefits of respondent No.5. This was in connection with the consequential

¶24

(3 of 3) [SAW-24/2022]

¶25

prayer in which she stated that her maintenance should be secured by asking respondent No.5 to pay the same directly in her bank account every month. This is precisely what the learned Single Judge has done in the impugned order. As noted the past dues have to be cleared and future maintenance would be paid directly from the pension payable to respondent No.5. No further prayer can be granted. The request of the petitioner that even after the directions issued by the Single Judge the retiral benefits of respondent No.5 should not be released simply defies logic.

¶26

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

¶27

(SAMEER JAIN),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI/19

¶28

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

Sumitra Singh W/O Omendra Singh D/O Hanuman Singh Hapawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Singh W/O Omendra Singh D/O Hanuman Singh Hapawat 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Raman Gupta S/O Shri Murari Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Officer, Vs Pawan Bansal S/O Shri Ramnarayan Bansal

Budhi Prakash Sharma S/O Harsh Narayan Sharma Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Lokesh Thakur Son of Late Shri Bhikam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Commercial Taxes Officer Vs M/S Shree Cement Product (India) Pvt. Limited

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Harish Chand Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan