HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Maheshwari W/o Shri Jayesh Kumar Joshi, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Nandiya, Chitari Police Station,
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,
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.
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
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
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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)