Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumit Sachdev vs Smt. Priti Sumit Sachdev on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 932/2022
Sumit Sachdev
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Priti Sumit Sachdev
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 765/2022
Preeti Sachdev
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 931/2022
Sumit
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Priti Sumit Sachdev
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Priti Sachdev present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
22/12/2022
By way of filing of instant revision petitions challenge has
been made to the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.7 Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in
Criminal Case No. 1400/2019 as well as against the judgment
dated 10.6.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Women Atrocities Cases) Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.
29/2022. The petitioner herein preferred a petition under Sections
(2 of 3) [CRLR-932/2022]
18, 19, 19A, 20, 21, 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act along with an application under Section 23 of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance. Vide
order dated 4.12.2021, the learned Magistrate though allowed the
application for interim maintenance but a very paltry arrears were
awarded, i.e. Rs. 2000 for petitioner no.1 and Rs. 2000/- for
petitioner no.2. On 5.8.22, notices were issued to the respondent.
On 23.9.22, memo of appearance has been furnished by learned
counsel Mr. JP Ranwa. On 15.12.2022, nobody was present before
this Court on behalf of the respondent, again on 19.12.2022, no
one was present to respond, therefore, the matter was directed to
be listed today. Today also, no one is present to represent the
respondent. The petitioner Smt. Priti is present in person and
submits that she is facing myriad difficulties and financial crisis
and submits that her daughter is suffering with critical disease of
MTHFR i.e. a very rare disease and she is not even able to move.
She strenuously urges that the respondent husband was earning
Rs. 10 lacs per month which is very much evident on the face of
the record. She further submits that the disclosure which were
required to be made by the respondent husband in view of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajneesh Vs. Neha & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 have not
been furnished and thus, it was imperative upon the Magistrate to
pass an award of at least some reasonable amount so that the
petitioner could maintain themselves and cover at least medical
expenses incurred for the treatment of her daughter. The
husband is under an obligation to maintain as well as take care of
his wife and daughter.
(3 of 3) [CRLR-932/2022]
Today is the day when at the Principal Bench, lawyers refrain
from marking their appearance before the Court in order to show
their protest against formation of Bench at Jaipur. In this view
of the matter, this Court does not wish to pass any order adverse
to the interest of the party as his counsel are not appearing.
List these matters on 2.1.2023.
(FARJAND ALI),J
23-25-
Arti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
