Disposed¶13

Rajnish Pathak v. Shivangi Pathak

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2025CRLMP/1152/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; daughter attained majority (aged about 18 years); application to stop maintenance payments held not to be multiplication of proceedings; liberty to petitioner to raise entitlement-to-maintenance issue before trial Court; set-off of maintenance payments paid till date against final trial-Court order; stay petition disposed; Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench; Justice Farjand Ali; S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1152/2025; Rajnish Pathak v. Shivangi Pathak and Ramya Pathak.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to raise the daughter-majority maintenance issue before the trial Court; payments made till date to be set off against the final trial-Court order; stay petition disposed of. ¶13

Rajnish Pathak Vs Shivangi Pathak — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for stopping payment of interim maintenance, made on the ground that his daughter has attained majority, was improper or merely multiplicative of proceedings, and how the pending interim-maintenance dispute should be dealt with.

¶14

Court's answer

The instant miscellaneous petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise before the trial Court the contention that, having attained the age of majority, the daughter would no longer be entitled to receive maintenance from her father.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Because the application to stop interim maintenance rested on the daughter's attainment of majority, it cannot be said that the application was moved for multiplication of the proceedings.

¶14

Key takeaways

The stay petition also stands disposed of.ratio¶15
The payments paid till date by the petitioner shall be set off in the final order passed by the learned trial Court.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali, S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1152/2025, order dated 11/02/2025: Petitioner Rajnish Pathak, father of respondent Smt. Ramya Pathak (aged about 18 years), had applied for stopping payment of interim maintenance on the ground that the daughter has attained majority. The High Court held that since the application rested on the daughter's attainment of majority, it cannot be said to have been moved for multiplication of the proceedings, and disposed of the miscellaneous petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise before the trial Court the issue that after attaining the age of majority the daughter would no longer be entitled to receive maintenance from her father. The stay petition also stood disposed of, and the Court directed that payments paid till date by the petitioner shall be set off in the final order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JD:8681]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1152/2025

¶4

Rajnish Pathak S/o Shri Radheshyam Pathak, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Flat No. 562, Guru Angad Nagar (West), Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi - 110092

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shivangi Pathak W/o Shri Rajnish Pathak, Aged About 43 Years, D/o Shri Omprakash Kapuria, R/o I-D-65, Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)

¶8

Smt. Ramya Pathak D/o Shri Rajnish Pathak, Aged About 18 Years, R/o I-D-65, Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Aman Bishnoi Bola
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Chandawat,Dy.G.A.
For Complainant	: Mr. Kunal Upadhyay

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶12

11/02/2025

¶13

The instant misc. petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the trial Court that after attaining the age of majority, the daughter would no longer be entitled to receive maintenance from her father.

¶14

Since the petitioner moved the application for stopping the payment of interim maintenance on the ground that the daughter has attained majority, therefore, it cannot be said that the application was moved for multiplication of the proceedings.

¶15

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶16

The payments paid till date by the petitioner shall be set off in the final order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶17

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶18

59-Ashutosh/-

Rajnish Pathak v. Shivangi Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Pathak v. Shivangi Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhudi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Yusuf Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Mumal Vs Police Commissioner

Ranveer Singh Saini Vs State and Anr.