Dismissed

Deepak Saksena v. Sarita Saksena and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 May 2024CRLR/223/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging a Family Court order granting prospective maintenance. Court noted the impugned order was reasoned. Dismissed the revision finding the judgment well-considered.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Family Court order modified with effect from date of filing stands upheld.

What the court decided

Deepak Saksena Vs Sarita Saksena and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23972]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 223/2017

¶4

Deepak Saksena S/o Suresh Saksena R/o Near Shanker Kui, Naya Bass, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sarita Saksena W/o Deepak Saksena, R/o Near Shanker Kui, Naya Bass, Alwar, District Alwar, At Present R/o Kalish Bihari Saksena, House No.115, Near Gate No.1, Rajat Grah Colony, Nainawa Road, Bundi, Raj.

¶8

Utkarash Saksena S/o Deepak Saksena, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Saksena, W/o Deepak Saksen, R/o Near Shanker Kui, Naya Bass, Alwar, District Alwar, At Present R/o Kalish Bihari Saksena, House No.115, Near Gate No.1, Rajat Grah Colony, Nainawa Road, Bundi, Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghuvendra Singh for Mr. Deepak Pareek Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

21/05/2024

¶14

The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Family Court by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- to the respondents with effect from the date of filing of the application. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order no reasoned order was assigned by the learned

[2024:RJ-JP:23972]

[CRLR-223/2017]

(2 of 3)

Family Judge for granting the amount of maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the application. Counsel submits that unless and until reason is assigned in the order such an order can not be passed, the order could have been passed from the date of passing of the order not from the date of filing of the application in support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas reported in (2015) 2 SCC 385.

¶19

Counsel submits that in these circumstances interference of this Court is warranted.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶21

Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent No.1 on 16.11.2002 and out from the wedlock, the respondent No.2 was born. Owning to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the respondents submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid application and submitted that the respondent No.1 has left the matrimonial home without any justified reason and has submitted that a false criminal case has been filed against him and the other family members in both the offence(s) under Section(s) 498A, 406 of IPC, wherein compromise took place between the parties and the matter was closed . It was also stated in the reply that subsequently the petitioner submitted an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce but later the said petition was

[2024:RJ-JP:23972]

[CRLR-223/2017]

(3 of 3)

also withdrawn. It was averred that in these circumstances the respondent was not entitled to get maintenance.

¶26

After hearing both the sides and perusing the material available on the record, the application filed by the respondents was allowed by the learned Family Judge directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5000 to the respondents with effect from the date of filing the application, the reason for passing such order was that the respondent No.2 is a minor student studying in school and the respondent No.1 was not competent to maintain herself and the minor son. A reasoned order has been passed by the Family Judge while passing the impugned order, directing to petitioner to pay the maintenance to the respondents with effect from the date of filing the application. A Judgment passed by the learned Family Judge has been passed in consonance of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha, reported in (2021)2 SCC 324. This Court finds no error which warrants any interference of this Court.

¶27

This petition is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

Garima /5

Deepak Saksena v. Sarita Saksena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Deepak Saksena v. Sarita Saksena and Anr.

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

Sattar Ali Tak Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naveen Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Raj Sharma Vs Meenal Bhargava W/O Naveen Sharma D/O Shri Navnit Bhargav

Alok Goyal S/O Late Shri Raghavdas Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra S/O Gulab Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Decorators Vs Vishnu Saini S/O Trilok Saini

Gajendra Singh Son of Shivraj Singh Vs Ranjeet Singh@Radhey Shyam Daroga Son of Narayan Singh