Rukhsana Bano Wife of Shri Mohammed Aslam, Vs Mohammed Aslam Son of Shri Mohammed Salam

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5038/2025

¶3

Rukhsana Bano Wife of Shri Mohammed Aslam, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of House No. 3929, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

¶4

Mohammed Ayan, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rukhsana Bano Wife Shri Mohammed Aslam, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of House No. 3929, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

¶5

Mohammed Wasim, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rukhsana Bano Wife Shri Mohammed Aslam, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of House No. 3929, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mohammed Aslam Son of Shri Mohammed Salam, Resident Of House No. 309, Ramgarh Moad, Suraj Colony, Beniwal Kanta, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur Rural Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mohammad Shahid Hassan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia-PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

18/11/2025

¶15

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Petition and issued direction to the Superintendent of police to make sure effective service upon the respondent recovery of maintenance filed by the petitioner wife and

¶17

[CRLMP-5038/2025]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

respondent non applicant husband may in kindly be directed to pay the entire outstanding amount to petitioner in criminal case no. 22/2023 under section 125 (3) of Cr.p.c. pending before the family court no. 2, Jaipur titled as Rukhsana Bano & Ors. versus Mohammed Aslam, whereby recovery warrant has not effected upon the respondent no. 1 in the larger interest of justice.

¶20

Any other order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of Misc. petition also awarded in favour of petitioner.”

¶21

By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the Superintendent of Police to ensure effective service of the recovery warrant for maintenance upon the respondent No. 1.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent No.1 before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur wherein exparte proceedings were initiated against him and a direction has been issued against the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner No. 1 and maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 till they attain the age of majority. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was passed on 16.03.2018 but till date, not a single penny has been paid by the respondent inspite of issuance of several recovery warrants against him. Counsel submits that whenever recovery warrants have been sent to the SHO, a report has been furnished that the respondent is not residing at the address mentioned in the recovery warrant whereas the respondent has been residing at the same place and address which was mentioned in the recovery warrants. Counsel submits that under these circumstances,

¶23

[CRLMP-5038/2025]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

appropriate direction be issued to the SP concerned to make all possible endeavours for serving recovery warrant upon the respondent.

¶26

In the considered opinion of this Court, before approaching this Court for seeking the aforesaid direction, it is expected from the petitioners to file such application before the Family Court. In case, the said application is submitted by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected from the Family Court to decide the said application expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶27

However, the petitioners would be at liberty to furnish a fresh and correct address of the respondent along with the said application for the purpose of issuance of recovery warrant against the respondent.

¶28

The criminal misc. petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Ashu/29

Rukhsana Bano Wife of Shri Mohammed Aslam, v. Mohammed Aslam Son of Shri Mohammed Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhsana Bano Wife of Shri Mohammed Aslam, v. Mohammed Aslam Son of Shri Mohammed Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mustufa Ali S/O Late Sultan Mirza Vs Jaipur Development Autority

Bheem Singh Shekhawat Son of Jaswant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Ramniwas Khati, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sundar Singh Son of Shri Nand Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand S/O Sukhlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinsh Kumawat S/O Mangal Ram Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan