Vinod Kushwah vs Smt. Rajkumari Kushwah on 28 July, 2017

Criminal Revision No.602/2017 1

(Vinod Kushwah Vs. Smt. Rajkumar Kushwah Anr.)
28.7.2017.
Shri H.D.Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri Santosh
Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated
7.4.17 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri, in
Case No.MJCR/2900023/2006, whereby the Family Court has
been pleased to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per
month in favour of respondent No.2/applicant No.2-Ku.

Manushka Kushwah.

The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that
respondent No.1-Smt. Rajkumari is living in adultery with one
Naresh and secondly present petitioner Vinod Kushwah has
already moved an application seeking custody of his minor
daughter Ku. Manushka Kushwah and since he is willing to
maintain his daughter who is at present living with her mother i.e.
respondent No.1, he submits that no liability can be fastened on
him to pay maintenance, specially when he is willing to maintain
his daughter and is seeking her custody.

Based on such submissions and levelling certain charges
against respondent No.1 i.e. wife of the petitioner and mother of
respondent No.2, impugned order has been assailed.

The provisions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are for the
purpose of maintenance of wives, children and parents. Learned
Court below has considered this aspect and has recorded a
finding that respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim any
maintenance as she is living away from her husband without any
cogent reasons since 2012 and this application was filed in the
year 2016, but looking to the fact that respondent No.2- Ku.
Manushka Kushwah is a minor and her age has been shown 3
Criminal Revision No.602/2017 2

years and 6 months in the cause title, she is required to stay with
her natural guardian mother, and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,500/-
has been awarded as maintenance in favour of such minor
daughter. Learned Court below has also recorded a finding that
present petitioner without obtaining divorce from his first wife has
married one lady Preeti and in view of such discussion, it cannot
be said that a sum of Rs.1,500/- granted by way of maintenance
to maintain minor daughter of the petitioner namely Ku.
Manushka Kushwah is excessive or arbitrary or against the
principles of law. However, petitioner’s contention that he is
willing to keep his daughter is concerned, that will be decided in
the proceedings under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act
and once that application is decided in favour of the petitioner,
then he will be free to move before the concerned Court with an
application that since he has earned custody of his minor
daughter, he is no more required to pay maintenance to his wife
for the maintenance of his daughter.

In view of such facts and proposition of law, this Court is
not impressed to entertain this criminal revision and interfere in
the impugned order. Thus, this revision fails and is dismissed.

(Vivek Agarwal)
Judge
ms/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *