Dismissed

Mangilal Rao v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CRLMP/5647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court held that the awarded amount was not unjust, noting the wife's illiteracy, the daughter's handicap, and the petitioner's high income.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed without any modification to the interim maintenance award.

Mangilal Rao Vs State of Rajasthan — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/012041]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5647/2021

¶4

Mangilal Rao S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Ji Rao, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 256, Azad Nagar, Hiranmagri, Sector No. 3, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Smt. Sushila Rao W/o Sh. Mangilal Rao, Aged About 54 Years, D/o Shri Sukhdev Ji Rao, R/o 707, Surya Nagar, Sector No. 4, Manwakheda, Udaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

Ms. Deepika Rao D/o Sh. Mangilal Rao, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 707, Surya Nagar, Sector No. 4, Manwakheda, Udaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Mohnot For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati – PP Mr. Ajay Vyas for complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶13

Order

¶14

12/05/2023

¶15

The present criminal misc. petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’) in Cr. Case No.139/2020, whereby, learned Judge while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainants directed payment of Rs.18,000/- per month to wife Smt. Sushila Rao and Rs.7,000/- per month to daughter Ms. Deepika Rao towards interim maintenance.

[2023/RJJD/012041]

[CRLMP-5647/2021]

(2 of 5)

Brief facts of the case are that the private respondents herein have filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner on the ground of desertion. It was submitted in the application that she and petitioner were married 40 years ago and out of the said wedlock three children Ravi, Deepikaand Sunny were born. It was submitted in the application that since beginning of the marriage petitioner was treating her with cruelty and after death of her mother-in-law in the year 2011, she alongwith her children were turned out of the matrimonial house by the petitioner and his family members. It was submitted that in the year 2016 the respondent No.2 came to know that petitioner is having illicit relationship and he is living with a woman. It was submitted that the respondents have no source of income for their livelihood.

¶20

A reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner accepting the fact of marriage with respondent No.2 and birth of children but denied the allegations levelled in the application. It was submitted that a particular amount has been depositing in the account of respondent No.2, therefore, there is no need of any income to her. It was prayed that the application for interim maintenance may be dismissed.

¶21

Learned Family Court vide impugned order has allowed the application filed by the private respondents and passed an interim order to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month as interim maintenance to both wife and daughter.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order without considering

[2023/RJJD/012041]

[CRLMP-5647/2021]

(3 of 5)

the facts of the case. He argued that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not dependent on the present petition and they are living with his son Mr. Ravi Rao, who is working in an Insurance Company and is earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. He argued that his younger son Mr. Sunny Rao is also working in Hotel industry and earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. He argued that both his sons are taking care of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, there is no need to maintain them. He argued that so far as respondent No.3 is concerned, she is taking private tuition at home and earning a good amount.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order has not considered the fact that the petitioner has already been depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as E.M.I. for the house of respondent Nos.2 and 3, which makes it clear that petitioner is taking care of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled to seek interim maintenance as they both have left the house of petitioner at their own will. He argued that since it was decided mutually to live separately, respondent No. 2 requested the petitioner to provide a house for living alongwith sons & daughter and as the EMI of Rs.15,000/- per month has been depositing by the petitioner, it proves that the petitioner has bought the house for respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is argued that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not entitled to get any interim maintenance.

¶28

Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and

[2023/RJJD/012041]

[CRLMP-5647/2021]

(4 of 5)

argued that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The factum of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.2 is admitted. It is not in a conflict that as a consequence of the wedlock petitioner and respondent No.2 are having two adult earning sons and a handicapped unmarried daughter.

¶34

The learned Family Court after evaluating the pleadings put forth by both parties observed that respondent No.2 is an illiterate lady and has no independent source of income. The Family Court also prima facia inferred that the daughter of the respondent is handicapped and dependent upon respondent No.2.

¶35

Both aforementioned contentions remained unrefuted. Respondent No.2 in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, specifically narrated the compelling reasons for deserting the matrimonial house indicating continuous harassment and cruelty by the petitioner. 13. The above facts are triable issues and need consideration after the conclusion of the enquiry. 14. Concerning the quantum of the award, it is admitted that the petitioner is a Bank officer and his monthly carry-home salary is Rs.97,000/- after all the deductions.

¶36

Looking at the fact that respondent No.2 is illiterate and has no means of earning and is wholly dependent on the petitioner and further, the unmarried daughter is handicapped (respondent No.3) the quantum of maintenance awarded to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not found to be unjust and irrational.

¶37

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-5647/2021]

¶38

[2023/RJJD/012041]

¶39

Further, the impugned order is an interim order and the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to refute the disputed facts during the detailed enquiry as contemplated in Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶40

Corollary to the above, the misc. petition sans any merit, hence dismissed.

¶41

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶42

AK Chouhan/-

Mangilal Rao v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal Rao 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

Kamal Kant Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhopal Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Vs State of Rajasthan

Charandas @ Charna Vs State of Rajasthan

Lala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan