Pramod Kumar vs Smt Rinku And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3896 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1115/2017

Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Prabhudayal, R/o Ranjeetpura Tan
Nandrampura Tehsil Chirawa Distt. Jhunjhunu Presently Teacher,
Government Upper Primary School, Basant Bihar Dhani, Paji Ki
Post, Kharkhada Tehsil Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.        Smt. Rinku W/o Shri Pramod Kumar D/o Shri Maniram,
          R/o C-104, Indira Nagar, Jhunjhunu Tehsil And Distt.
          Jhunjhunu
2.        Rakshit Chaudhary Aged About 9 Years 4 Months S/o Shri
          Pramod Kumar D/o Shri Maniram, R/o C-104, Indira
          Nagar, Jhunjhunu Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu Minor
          Through Mother Smt. Rinku
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Adv.

assisted by Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. O P Mishra with Mr. Ajay Verma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

19/08/2021

1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by

order dated 11.05.2017 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jhunjhunu

whereby the criminal misc. petition was partly allowed.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the amount

claimed by the respondents before the Family Court was

Rs.6,000/- per month for Respondent No.2, son of petitioner,

however, the Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also

contended that petitioner has paid huge amount to the

Respondent No.2, however, if the respondents did not claim arrear,

(2 of 2) [CRLR-1115/2017]

he would not be pressing present revision petition. As far as arrear

is concerned, he would be satisfied if from the month of August,

petitioner is directed to pay only Rs.6,000/- per month till

Respondent No.2 attains majority.

3. Counsel for the complainant is agreed to the proposal made

by the petitioner. Whatever amount has been received by

Respondent No.2 would not be claimed by the petitioner and

similar non-petitioners-respondents would not claim any amount

as arrears and would be entitled to Rs.6,000/- per month from

August, 2021 till Respondent No.2 attains majority.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. In view of the fact that parties have amicably settled the

dispute pertaining to the maintenance, I deem it proper to allow

the present Revision Petition.

6. Accordingly, present Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

7. Respondent No.2, son of petitioner is now entitled to receive

Rs.6,000/- per month from the petitioner from the month of

August 2021 till he attains majority. Whatever amount has been

received by the respondents in pursuance of the order dated

11.05.2017, would not be refunded.

8. Stay application stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /34

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)