Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Seema Pareek vs Gopal Pareek on 13 July, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 644/2021

1. Seema Pareek D/o Shree Bulkiram Tiwari, W/o Gopal Pareek, Aged About 40 Years, Matrachaya Nakoda Nagar, Station Road, Kankroli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

2. Pranav Pareek @ Kanhiya Pareek S/o Gopal Pareek, Aged About 13 Years, Matrachaya Nakoda Nagar, Station Road, Kankroli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.). (Through His Natural Guardian Petitioner No. 1).

3. Vrinda Pareek D/o Gopal Pareek, Aged About 8 Years, Matrachaya Nakoda Nagar, Station Road, Kankroli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.). (Through His Natural Guardian Petitioner No. 1).

----Petitioners Versus Gopal Pareek S/o Suresh Pareek, Aged About 43 Years, Shiv Viharkrishi Farm Soyabean Factory Govindpuri, Bawdi, Tehsil Taleda, Distt. Bundi (Raj.).

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s)            :     Ms. Ranjeeta Kawadia

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 06/07/2022 Pronounced on 13/07/2022

1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. and under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts

Act, 1984 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed and:-

                                                (2 of 8)                      [CRLR-644/2021]

       i.         The impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the

Learned Family Court, Rajsamand (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 22/2018 (Smt. Seema Pareekh & ors. Vs. Shri Gopal Pareekh) may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

ii. The monthly maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) may kindly be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) iii. The monthly maintenance may kindly be ordered from the date of filing of the application (i.e. 23.03.2018)"

2. As revealed from the aforequoted prayer clauses, this

Criminal Revision Petition assails the order dated 31.01.2020,

passed by the learned Family Court, Rajasamand in Smt. Seema

Pareekh & Ors. Vs. Shri Gopal Pareekh, Case No. 22/2018, while

seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount of Rs. 11,000/-,

as granted to the revisionist-petitioners (wife, son and daughter,

respectively, of the respondent) by the learned Court below.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submited that

the revisionist-petitioners filed an application under Section 125

Cr.P.C. before the learned court below on 23.03.2018, stating

therein that the revisionist-petitioner no. 1, Smt. Seema Pareek

(hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') and the respondent, Shri

Gopal Pareek (hereinafter referred to as 'the husband') entered

into the wedlock, as per Hindu rituals and customs, on

15.01.2007, and that, out of the said wedlock, two children were

born to them, a son, i.e. revisionist-petitioner no. 2 and a

daughter, i.e. revisionist-petitioner no.3; the age of the children

was 10 years and 05 years respectively, on the date of passing of

the impugned order, and that the respondent-husband deserted

the revisionist-petitioners since the last five years from filing of

the said application.

(3 of 8) [CRLR-644/2021]

3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that after marriage, the

husband and his family members began harassing the wife, which

continued when she was pregnant with their son. And that the

same continued despite the husband and wife moving to Indore,

and that therefore, she had to move back to her maternal home

on 05.03.2016.

3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the wife does not have

any independent source of income and that she is not in a position

to financially sustain herself and her two children. And that, the

husband in fact has a shop in Kota, Rajasthan from which he earns

a yearly rent of about Rs. 2 Lakhs, and also owns about 39 bighas

of land, an agricultural farm which has housing of about 15-20

rooms and shops outside, from which he generates a monthly

income of about Rs. 50,000/-

3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that looking into the

income and holdings of the husband, the wife sought a monthly

maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for children and herself under Section

125 Cr.P.C. application filed before the learned Family Court below.

And that in response to the same, the husband, while denying the

averments made by the wife, stated that he has already opened

an FDR in the name of the wife, to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- and

has also taken an insurance policy for their children, for which he

is making a premium payment of Rs. 7,767/- annually.

3.4 Learned counsel also submitted that while the learned Court

below rightly held that the husband is competent and has the

financial capacity to pay a monthly maintenance to the revisionist-

petitioners, it incorrectly and without any cogent reasoning or

(4 of 8) [CRLR-644/2021]

justification awarded a meagre amount of maintenance to the

tune of Rs. 11,000/- per month.

3.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court

below has gravely erred not only in the determination of the

amount of the monthly maintenance, as mentioned hereinabove,

but also in directing that the said sum be payable from the date of

order and not from the date of application, which runs contrary to

the settled proposition of law.

3.6 Learned counsel also submitted that it is an admitted

position, as also stated in the cross-examnation of the husband,

that the wife is bearing the educational expenses of their children,

despite not being in a financially sound position. And that

therefore, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards each child has been

insufficiently determined.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent-husband opposed the submissions made on behalf

of the revisionist-petitioners, and submits that the impugned

order, determining the monthly amount of maintenance payable

by the respondent-husband to the revisionist-petitioners has been

rightly passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts

and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed

on record before it.

4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the wife was

maintained by her husband and family well, and that she was not

ill-treated, at any point of time, as alleged.

4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the wife is a qualified

professional, who holds M.A. degree, and has completed a

(5 of 8) [CRLR-644/2021]

computer course as well, and apart therefrom, she has enough

earning out of the teaching job in a private school.

4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the husband secured

a job in the year 2012, working in a company called Geeta

Packaging, and at that time, the wife was suffering from mental

health issues, and that on many occasions, she used to become

aggressive; she was also suffering from nausea and would become

obsessive about washing her hands. And that, in the year 2014,

he began her treatment.

4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the wife had told the

husband that she had these mental health issues since childhood,

and that the husband always stood by her and incurred heavy

expenditure towards her treatment. And that, he also enrolled his

children in Annie Besant School, an English medium school in

Indore. Furthermore, although he was unable to sustain the above

mentioned expenditures, given that he was earning a meager

monthly salary and therefore was in fact, taking financial

assistance from his father, who used to send him about Rs.3,000/-

to 4,000/- and sometimes his sister would also provide him with

some financial assistance.

4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that while they used to

reside in Kota, he had managed to amass savings to the tune of

Rs. 52,000/-, which he utilized to open a fixed deposit in the name

of the wife, and that the value of the same as on date of passing

the impugned order was about Rs.85,000/- And that, he had also

opened a recurring deposit, in which he makes monthly deposits

of Rs. 500/- in the Grameen Bank, Kota for his son, and that he

had also taken an insurance policy for his children, toward which

(6 of 8) [CRLR-644/2021]

he was, and is still, making an annual premium payment of Rs.

7,767/- And that he also had made two additional fixed deposits

of Rs. 26,000 and the other Rs. 90,000, the latter being on the

name of their son.

4.6 Learned counsel also submitted that in the year 2016, it was

at the instance of the wife who said that she would take their

children, since their exams had ended and they had vacations

from their school, to her maternal home at Kankaroli for a few

days. And that, subsequently, when the husband called her and

asked them to return, since their vacation was over, it was then,

the wife informed him that she had in fact enrolled their children

in a local school, and that the husband should collect the T.C. from

their old school and send it to her. And that, keeping in mind the

well being of his children, he finally acquiesced and sent her their

T.C. from the previous school.

4.7 Learned counsel further submitted that the mental health of

the husband, due to the sequence of events as discussed

hereinabove, deteriorated and that he was suffering from

depression. And that, instead of living alone in Indore, he decided

to resign from his job and returned to live with his parents.

5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the

record of the case.

6. This Court finds that the learned Court below has fairly

awarded the amount of Rs. 11,000/- payable as monthly

maintenance, by the husband to his wife and children, of which

the Court below has decreed Rs. 5,000/- towards the wife, and Rs.

3,000/- each towards each of their two children, after looking into

the husband's monthly income and property holdings, and the

(7 of 8) [CRLR-644/2021]

investments, fixed deposits, insurance policies, which he has made

in the name of his wife and children.

7. This Court observes that the learned Court below has rightly

determined the financial standing of the husband, based on

evidences placed on the record before it, at Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4,

land revenue record which reveal that the husband's father, Mr.

Suresh Kumar, had 20 bighas of land and had a joint holding of

57.17 bighas in which he had a 1/3 rd share. And that, the

photographs placed on the record, at Ex. P/9, reveal that the

husband and his family cultivate their agricultural land, as

discussed hereinabove, and grow crops on the same.

8. This Court further observes that the learned Court below has

rightly held that although the relationship between the husband

and wife may have soured, there appears that there was once love

and concern for the wife and his children by the husband, as is

revealed from the fixed deposits made by him in the name of his

wife, to the tune of Rs. 52,000/- and that he was making monthly

deposits of Rs. 500 in a recurring deposit in the Grameen Bank,

Kota, for their son, amongst other investments.

9. This Court also observes that the learned Court below has

justly held that only because the wife is a qualified professional,

she is not dis-entitled to seek maintenance for herself and her

children from her husband, further fortified by the fact that she is

unemployed, while her husband has the financial capacity to

sustain them financially.

10. This Court therefore observes that the learned Court below

has fairly arrived at determining an amount of Rs.11,000/-

                                                                                  (8 of 8)                       [CRLR-644/2021]


                                   monthly         maintenance        payable        by     the     respondent         to   the

                                   revisionist-petitioners.

11. However, this Court finds that the learned Court below has

erred in holding that the said amount of total monthly

maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- payable by the respondent to the

revisionist-petitioners, Rs. 5,000/- towards the wife, and

Rs.3,000/- towards each of their children, would be payable from

the date of the impugned order. This a clear deviation from the

settled position of law, that maintenance be awarded from the

date of application, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324.

12. Thus, this Court, in light of the above made observations,

partly allows the present revision petition, and while maintaining

the amount of Rs. 11,000/- monthly maintenance awarded to the