Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deepesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2164/2022
Deepesh Kumar S/o Shri Arvind Kumar, Aged About 37 Years,
B/c Jain, R/o 4/63, Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board Colony,
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Bhawna Jain W/o Shri Deepesh Kumar Jain, Aged
About 30 Years, D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, R/o 4/63,
Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Dungarpur,
Rajasthan, Presently R/o 268, Chanakyapuri, Hiran
Magari, Sector No. 04, Udaipur, Rajsthan.
3. Bhavya Jain S/o Shri Deepesh Kumar Jain, Through His
Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bhawna Jain W/o Shri
Deepesh Kumar Jain, D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 4/63, Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board
Colony, Dungarpur, Rajasthan, Presently R/o 268,
Chanakyapuri, Hiran Magari, Sector No. 04, Udaipur,
Rajsthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puskhar Taimni for Mr. R.S. Rawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, Public Prosecutor
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/08/2022
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the learned Family Court
No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Family Court"),
whereby a sum of Rs.5000/- has been ordered to be paid to the
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2164/2022]
respondent No.2 (wife) and a sum of Rs.4000/- to the respondent
No.3 (daughter) as interim maintenance.
2. Mr. Pushkar Taimni, learned counsel for the petitioner raised
two basic grounds for quashment of the order impugned - firstly,
the respondent No.2 (wife) had not filed affidavit as required by
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and that the
amount determined by the learned Family Court is based on
conjecture and surmise.
3. Learned counsel argued that it was the bare assertion of the
respondent No.2 (wife) that the petitioner is earning Rs.45,000/-
as monthly salary and Rs.60,000/- from other sources, without
any supporting evidence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor, perused the material available on record.
5. Upon perusal of the order impugned dated 15.12.2021, it is
apparent that while maintaining that he does not have income
from other sources, the petitioner himself (in his reply) had stated
that his monthly salary is between 15,000-17,000/-.
6. In the face of the above admission of the petitioner (he is
earning Rs.15,000-17,000/- per month), learned Family Court was
justified in passing the order impugned, whereby a total monthly
maintenance of Rs.9,000/- has been ordered to be paid to
respondent No.2 and 3.
7. So far as the basic ground advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner that since the respondent No.2 has failed to file
affidavit, the learned Family Court ought not to have passed the
order of interim maintenance is concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that non-filing of the affidavit per se cannot take
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2164/2022]
away the respondent's right to claim interim maintenance,
particularly when the petitioner himself has admitted to be
drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000-17,000/-.
8. This Court neither finds any error in the impugned order, nor
does it find the amount of Rs.9,000/- to be excessive.
9. The misc. petition, therefore, fails.
10. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
239-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
