Ganpatlal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1651 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 450/2022

Ganpatlal S/o Dungarmal, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Chitrodi Hall, Raniwada, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Santosh W/o Ganpatlal, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Mulchand, R/o Chitrodi, Hall Baba Ramdev Colony, Gundriya Holi Choke, Bhinmal, District Jalore.

3. Subhash S/o Ganpatlal, Aged About 9 Years, R/o Chitrodi, Hall Baba Ramdev Colony, Gundriya Holi Choke, Bhinmal, District Jalore.

4. Rahul S/o Ganpatlal, Aged About 7 Years, R/o Chitrodi, Hall Baba Ramdev Colony, Gundriya Holi Choke, Bhinmal, District Jalore.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kshama Purohit (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

02/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for setting aside the

order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bhinmal, District Jalore (for short 'the trial court') in

the pending proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have been

initiated at the instance of the respondent Nos.2 to 4, who

happened to be the legally wedded wife and children of the

petitioner. The trial court vide impugned order dated 20.07.2020

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-450/2022]

has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune

of Rs.12,000/- per month (Rs.6000/- for the respondent No.2 and

Rs.3000/- each for respondent No.3 and 4) from the date of filing

of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is not having that much of income to pay interim

maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent Nos.2

to 4. It is argued that the petitioner is ready to keep the

respondent Nos.2 to 4 with him. It is, thus, prayed the impugned

order may kindly be set aside.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the

trial court has not committed any illegality while directing the

petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,000/-

to the respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner has failed to

demonstrate before the trial court that the respondent Nos.2 to 4

have sufficient means to maintain themselves. The trial court has

also observed that as several criminal cases have been instituted

between the parties, it can be assumed that it would be difficult

for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to live with the petitioner.

The trial court has also observed that though the respondent

No.2 has claimed that monthly income of the petitioner is rupees

fifty five thousand, but she has failed to prove the same and at

the same time, the petitioner has disclosed his income, but the

said disclosure in not believable.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking

into consideration and the overall facts and circumstances of the

case and the fact that the impugned order dated 20.07.2020 is

challenged before this Court after one and a half year, I am not

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-450/2022]

inclined to interfere in this criminal misc. petition and the same is

hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 97-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)