Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dharmendra Dhaniya vs Smt Reena Middal on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 776/2020
Dharmendra Dhaniya S/o Shri Bhniya Ram Ji, Aged About 37
Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Khariya Meethapur , Tehsil Bilara ,
Distt. Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt Reena Middal W/o Shri Dharmendra Dhaniya, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Khariya Meethapur , Tehsil Bilara ,
Distt. Jodhpur Presently R/o Kamla Apartment , Near
Circuit House , Jodhpur
2. Ms Avni D/o Shri Dharmendra Dhaniya, Minor Through
Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Middal R/o
Khariya Meethapur , Tehsil Bilara , Distt. Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
09/07/2021
The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner
Dharmendra Dhaniya for assailing the order dated 09.09.2020
passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal
Original Case No.13/2019 whereby, the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondents being the wife and
daughter of the petitioner, was partly accepted and the petitioner
herein was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards monthly maintenance to his minor daughter respondent
No.2.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-776/2020]
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel Shri Arora representing the petitioner and have
gone through the impugned order.
Suffice it to say that the petitioner is a Teacher in the
Education Department and as per his salary statement, he was
drawing net salary of Rs.69,111/- per month. The sole argument
advanced on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the impugned
order is that the respondent wife Smt. Reena is also posted as a
Teacher in the Education Department and that she too earns
handsome salary and thus, it is her obligation to maintain the
child. I have considered the said submission advanced by Shri
Arora and have carefully perused the impugned order.
Suffice it to say that there cannot be any dispute regarding
obligation of both the parents to maintain the minor children. The
Family Court consciously deliberated upon the entire material
available on record and held that Smt. Reena was bringing up the
child with all possible love and affection and all efforts were being
put in by her to ensure the best interest of the child. The
petitioner who earns a hefty salary by working as a Teacher in the
Education Department, cannot shrug off the responsibility to bear
the expenses for the upbringing of the child. A sum of Rs.15,000/-
per month awarded to the child as maintenance cannot be said to
be excessive or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination in
these times of high cost of living.
Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the learned Family Court
was absolutely justified in directing the petitioner to make
payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards monthly
maintenance of his daughter while deciding the application by the
impugned order dated 09.09.2020 which ex-facie does not suffer
(3 of 3) [CRLR-776/2020]
from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference
therein.
Hence, the revision petition as well as stay application are
rejected as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
10-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
