HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 624 / 2018
Kamal Khorwal Son of Shri Om Prakash Khorwal, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of- Bera Wala Bas, Behind Bhadwasia School,
Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Rekha D/o Shri Prabhu Ram Ji Jetaliya, By Caste Jatiya,
Resident of Bhadwasia, Jodhpur At Present Village Soyala Tehsil
Bawari Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. State of Rajasthan Through G.A.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J.Gehlot.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment
08/03/2018
Heard.
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed
by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 20.1.2018
passed by the learned Additional Sessions (Women Atrocities
Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the appeal preferred by
the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (referred to herein after as ‘the Act
of 2005’) has been dismissed. The said appeal was preferred by
the petitioner against the order dated 5.8.2017 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur
Metro (for short ‘the trial Court) on an application preferred by the
respondent no.1 Rekha under Section 23 of the Act of 2005
whereby, the trial Court has directed the petitioner to pay monthly
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-624/2018]
maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
respondent is residing separately from the petitioner as per her
own will without there being any reasonable cause and, therefore,
she is not entitled to monthly maintenance as directed by the
Courts below. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent has also deserted her son who was
born only on 22.5.2015 and for this reason also, she is not
entitled for any interim maintenance. It is also contended that the
respondent is working as a teacher in a private school and,
therefore, she is earning sufficient amount to maintain herself and
for this reason also, she is not entitled for any interim
maintenance. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the trial Court has grossly erred in directing the
petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/-
from the date of application instead from the date of order. On the
strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned orders.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned orders.
The learned Courts below have taken into consideration the
fact that the respondent is residing separately from the petitioner
as she was subjected to cruelty and for that, she has also filed an
F.I.R. against the petitioner at the concerned police station for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. It is also
observed by the Courts below that there is no evidence available
on record to suggest that the respondent is working as a teacher
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-624/2018]
in the private school or she is having sufficient means to maintain
herself. The trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that
the petitioner is working in the I.C.I.C.I. Bank and is getting
monthly salary. After taking into consideration the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have directed the
petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/-
to the respondent from the date of filing of the application. I don’t
find any sufficient reason to interfere in the impugned orders
passed by the Courts below. The argument of learned counsel for
the petitioner to the effect that the monthly maintenance be
ordered to be paid to the respondent from the date of order
passed by the trial Court is also bereft of any merit, hence,
rejected.
Consequently, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay
petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
S.Phophaliya/-