Disposed

Viplove Singh S/O Sh. Shyam Singh v. Kavita Singh W/O Viplove Singh

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CRLR/421/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A husband sought revision of a Family Court order granting Rs.15,000/- per month maintenance to his wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court upheld the award as reasoned and cogent and disposed of the petition with a modification adjusting the sum against maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; maintenance award retained with adjustment against Section 24 HMA maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month.

Viplove Singh S/O Sh. Shyam Singh Vs Kavita Singh… — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 421/2020

¶3

Viplove Singh S/o Sh. Shyam Singh, R/o Kherapati Mohalla, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kavita Singh W/o Viplove Singh, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Tej Singh

¶7

Adarsh @ Frank S/o Viplove Singh, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kavita Singh W/o Viplove Singh, Both At Present R/o Gaurishanker Colony, Falcon Guest House, Saras Chouraha, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

17/05/2024

¶13

The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.02.2020 passed by Family Court No.1, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.415/2015 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.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2-son.

¶14

Contents of the petition indicate that marriage of the petition was solemnized with respondent No.1-wife on 13.03.2012 and from the wedlock, one child (Respondent No.2) was born and owing to some matrimonial dispute between the parties, the

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLR-421/2020]

¶16

respondents submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner seeking adequate amount of maintenance. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid application and denied the averments made in application and submitted that the respondent No.1-wife has left matrimonial home, without any justified reason, hence, she is not entitled to get any sort of maintenance.

¶17

Considering the material available on the record, Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent and has directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents.

¶18

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court. The documents enclosed with the petition indicate that a separate order has been passed against the petitioner by the Family Court, Bharatpur on 17.10.2016 by which the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent. By passing of this order, it is clarifed that the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- would be adjusted in the amount of maintenance granted to the respondent in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned Family Judge has passed a reasoned and cogent order which requires no interference of this Court.

¶19

The provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, intends to protect the right of the wife and minor child with the object to prevent vagrancy and destitution as held

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLR-421/2020]

¶22

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad

¶23

Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348 .

¶24

This Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by the Family Court. The petitioner cannot be allowed to escape from his liability from making payment of maintenance to the respondents. The order passed by the Family Court is just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modifications. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

Aayush Sharma/13

Viplove Singh S/O Sh. Shyam Singh v. Kavita Singh W/O Viplove Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viplove Singh S/O Sh. Shyam Singh v. Kavita Singh W/O Viplove Singh

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

Koshindra Allias Sikandra and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramkesh S/O Motiram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Arbab Khan @ Shanu S/O Amanatullah Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sooraj Son of Lal Bahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit @ Banti Vs Smt Lalita Kushwaha

Jai Ram Arya Son of Sh. Rawat Ram Ji Arya Vs State of Rajasthan