HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 794/2018

Jayesh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Bhai Shanker Joshi, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Nandiya, Chitari Police Station, District Dungarpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Maheshwari W/o Shri Jayesh Kumar Joshi, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Nandiya, Chitari Police Station,
District Dungarpur.

—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 114/2018
Smt Maheshwari Wife Of Shri Jayesh Kumar Joshi, By Caste
Brahmin, Resident Of Nandiya Village, Chitari Police Station,
District Dungarpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Jayesh Kumar Son Of Shri Bhaishanker Ji Joshi, By Caste
Brahmin, Resident Of Nandiya Village, Chitari Police
Station, District Dungarpur.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SS Shaktawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. OP Rathi, PP
Mr. JVS Deora

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

13/12/2018

Both the revision petitions have been filed under Section 19

of Family Courts Act against the order dated 01.12.2017 passed

by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dungarpur in Criminal Misc.

(2 of 3) [CRLR-794/2018]

Case No.379/2013 whereby, the learned Family Court allowed the

application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

and directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.1,000/- per month

to the respondent-wife as maintenance.

The petitioner-husband has filed the revision No.794/2018

for quashing of the order of maintenance passed in favour of the

respondent-wife by the Family Court and the respondent-wife has

filed the revision No.114/2018 for enhancement of the

maintenance granted in her favour by the Family Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the

respondent-wife is working as Anganwari Worker in Bal Vikas

Pariyojana and by the said work, she earns Rs.4,799/- per month

and presently she is residing in the house of the petitioner-

husband. Counsel further submits that an application under

Section 498A IPC was filed by the respondent-wife against the

petitioner-husband in which the petitioner-husband has been

acquitted by the trial court. It is further argued that earlier the

respondent-wife had also filed an affidavit before the trial court

stating that she will reside happily and with good behaviour with

the petitioner-husband, which shows that her behaviour was not

good with the petitioner-husband. In these circumstances, the

respondent-wife is not entitled for any maintenance, therefore the

order impugned awarding maintenance in favour of the

respondent-wife may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits

that the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Family Court

is a meager amount. The respondent-wife is a part time

Anganwadi Worker in Bal Vikas Pariyojana and she earns only

Rs.4,799/- per month, which is not a sufficient income to maintain
(3 of 3) [CRLR-794/2018]

herself. Further except the respondent-wife there is no other

earning member in the family, so in these circumstances the

amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court may be

suitably enhanced.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order and scanned the entire record.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that

the learned Family Court after considering the whole evidence as

well as the material aspect of the matter and statement of the

witnesses has rightly awarded the maintenance amount of

Rs.1,000.- in favour of the respondent-wife, which cannot be said

to be excessive or meager. Hence, the order impugned is just and

proper and does not warrant any interference.

In view of the above, the learned court below has not

committed any error in passing the impugned order. Hence, both

the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
87-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)