Dismissed

Shri Karamveer v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2024CRLMA/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application, the Supreme Court of Rajasthan examined a petition to modify a maintenance order, specifically regarding deposit of fees and the start date for interim maintenance. The court clarified the scope of the previous order, addressed the payment timeline in light of Supreme Court directions, and rejected the petitioner's modification requests while dismissing

What did the court decide?

Petition to modify order regarding payment dates and clarification on scope of forgery observation rejected; application dismissed; indulgence for deposit expired.

Shri Karamveer Vs State of Rajasthan — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 20/2024

¶3

Shri Karamveer S/o Shri Harikishan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Chang, Bawani Khera, Bhiwani, Haryan, India. At Present Residing At C/o Jagdish Chander, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Priyanka W/o Karanveer, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Un Mil Ke Paas, Kotwali, Churu, Rajasthan.

¶7

Garvit S/o Karamveer Singh, R/o Un Mil Ke Paas, Kotwali, Churu, Rajasthan, Through His Guardian Mother Priyanka W/o Karanveer Age 44 Years, R/o Un Mil Ke Pass, Kotwali, Churu, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Gokhlani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP Mr. DD Chittalangi

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

12/02/2024

¶13

By way of filing this present misc. application, the applicantpetitioner has prayed that order dated 01.12.2023 passed by this Court be modified.

¶14

Mr. Gokhlani, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the stipulation made in para No.15 of the order under consideration will affect petitioners’ endeavor to call into question the alleged forgery committed by the respondent No.1 before permanent Lok Adalat.

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMA-20/2024]

¶16

Learned counsel further prayed that the order requiring payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- “from the date of application” be modified to “from the date of the order”.

¶17

Mr. Chittalangi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner is employing delaying tactis and has paid only a paltry sum of Rs.80,000/- to the respondents, despite the fact that respondents’ application under Section 125 Cr.P.C is pending since 2015.

¶18

Heard rival counsel.

¶19

So far as the first contention of learned counsel is concerned, suffice it to observe that this Court has fixed only the quantum of maintenance as Rs.10,000/- per month and the order of the Lok Adalat stands modified in that context and to that extent only. Any observation made in the order under consideration will neither come in the way of petitioner’s challenge nor will the same influence decision of the authority/Court, deciding petitioner’s contention in relation to forgery (if any) committed.

¶20

So far as petitioner’s prayer for modification of the stipulation of payment of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance payable from the “date of application” to “date of order”, is concerned the same is rejected. Under sub-section (2) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the Court is conferred with a discretion to award interim maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of order. This Court is also reminded of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 334, wherein the Apex Court has issued directions that maintenance shall be awarded from the date of filing the application. That apart, the Court has passed the

¶21

[CRLMA-20/2024]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

order consciously, after hearing both the parties and considering that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.c. is pending since 2015.

¶24

With the above clarification, the application is dismissed.

¶25

It is to be noted that per force the order dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on or before 31.01.2024, which he has not deposited so far. Hence, by virtue of para No.14 of the order dated 01.12.2023, the indulgence granted by this Court by its order has come to an end.

¶26

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶27

145-raksha/-

Shri Karamveer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Karamveer 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Pachar Vs Punjab National Bank

Ramjaan Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar Vs the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Aabahas Acharya Vs Sushil Kumar Jain

Rai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Loon Karan Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan