Dismissed

Deendayal Son of Kehari, v. Smt. Rekha Wife of Deendayal D/O Jasram

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2025CRLMP/6052/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petition challenging an interim maintenance order. Held that the matter should be decided by the trial Court after collecting affidavits showing the petitioner's ability to challenge the order, citing Rajnesh Vs. Neha.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and pending applications also disposed of.

Deendayal Son of Kehari, Vs Smt. Rekha Wife of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45426]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6052/2025

¶4

Deendayal Son Of Kehari, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Surer, Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Rekha Wife Of Deendayal D/o Jasram, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Surer, Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar, At Present Resident Of Parbeni, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Parashar For Respondent(s) :

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

12/11/2025

¶13

By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Raini, District Alwar by which an interim order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raini, District Alwar seeking maintenance against the petitioner. Counsel submits that during the pendency of the said application, the aforesaid interim order has been passed.

¶15

Counsel submits that the respondent is quite able to maintain herself as she is working with a company, namely,

[2025:RJ-JP:45426]

[CRLMP-6052/2025]

(2 of 3)

Modern Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. and she is getting salary of Rs.20,141/- per month. Counsel submits that this fact is clear from the pay slip issued by the aforesaid company. Counsel submits that this document was not available with the petitioner when the order impugned was passed, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the main application submitted by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still lying pending for its adjudication on merits before the trial Court during pendency of the aforesaid application, the order impugned has been passed by which a direction has been issued to the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent till disposal of the said application.

¶21

In the considered opinion of this Court, if at all it is a case of the petitioner that the respondent is earning and she is able to maintain herself and she is working with Modern Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd., the document in this regard should have been submitted before the Court below at the time of passing of the aforesaid interim order and if at all the petitioner has received the aforesaid document now, he is at liberty to file these documents before the trial Court along-with an affidavit. 7. It is expected from the trial Court to decide the main petition after getting affidavits in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-6052/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:45426]

reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 and after taking the affidavits of both the sides.

¶26

Needless to observe that all possible endeavors would be made by the Court below to decide the pending application expeditiously, as early as possible.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

Aayush Sharma /22

Deendayal Son of Kehari, v. Smt. Rekha Wife of Deendayal D/O Jasram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deendayal Son of Kehari, v. Smt. Rekha Wife of Deendayal D/O Jasram

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

Jitendra @ Jeetu S/O Late Shri Ramlal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gajraj Singh S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhinav Choudhari S/O Shripal Choudhari Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod S/O Shri Murlidhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Moolchand Sharma, Vs Rajendra Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Moti Lal Yogi