Petitioner sought quashing of a Family Court order granting interim maintenance to his separated wife. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the impugned order did not suffer from illegality or perversity.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:19881]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1224/2024
Govind Prasad Saini S/o Shri Gillu Ram Saini, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Mochiyo Ka Mohalla Opposite Kalalo Ki Chakki Ward No. 29 Village Ramgarh Shekhawati Dist. Sikar Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
| Versus |
|---|
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Nonepresent |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP |
| Mr. DD Chitlangi for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER
06/05/2024
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure-3) passed by Family Court, Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent- wife is presently living separately from her husband i.e. the present petitioner. The petitioner is a retired police officer and therefore, he is a recipient of a handsome monthly pension from the Government of Rajasthan.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Judge Family Court, Churu, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is living separately from her husband owing to his bad behavior. It
[2024:RJ-JD:19881]
[CRLMP-1224/2024]
(2 of 2)
was vehemently contended that there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent is living in adultery; or has refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason; or she is living separately by mutual consent. Learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Churu directing the petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to his wife i.e. respondent No.2 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity whatsoever and therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the respondent and after perusing the record of the present misc. petition, this Court prima facie finds that respondent No.2 who is aged about 70 years is living separately from her husband. There is nothing on record to establish that respondent No.2 is intentionally living separately from her husband (petitioner) or she suffers from any ineligibility prescribed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance in her favour.
In the opinion of this Court since the petitioner is a recipient of monthly pension from the Government of Rajasthan, he cannot deny payment of interim maintenance determined by Family Court, Churu, to his wife.
Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
534-TarunGoyal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court order granting interim maintenance can be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Govind Prasad Saini
State Of Rajasthan
Narayani Devi
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
