Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Geeta vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 422/2022
Geeta W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Solanki D/o Sh. Sawai Singh
Parihar, Aged About 41 Years, Dhana Mohalla, Near Sahid Setha
Ram, Mathaniya, Teh. Osiya, Dist. Jodhpur, At Present Tila Ram
Ji Solanki Ka Bera, Sodho Ki Dhani, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Gumana Ram Solanki, R/o C/o Tila
Ram Ji Solanki Ka Bera, Sodho Ki Dhani, Soorsagar,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Choudhary
For Respondents : Mr. Salim Khan Mehar, P.P.
Ms. Yogita Mohanani
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 23/11/2022
Pronounced on 25/11/2022
1. This Criminal Petition under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"1. This Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and the order
Dt. 10.2.2022 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court No.-2,
Jodhpur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.-117/2019 (NCV No.
1170/2019) (Smt. Geeta V/s. Ashok Kumar), may kindly be
quashed and set-aside and the application U/s. 127 Cr.P.C.
preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.
2. That the respondent No. 2 be directed to pay a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from
the date of filing of the application.
3. Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner."
(Downloaded on 26/11/2022 at 12:00:54 AM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-422/2022]
2. Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and a perusal of
the record would reveal, are that the petitioner (wife) and the
private respondent (husband) are legally married, and that the
petitioner-wife filed a criminal case, bearing no. 79/2003, against
the private respondent-husband before the Family Court No.2,
Jodhpur for maintenance, whereupon vide order dated
01.05.2012, the respondent-husband was directed to pay her a
monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/-. It was the contention of the
petitioner-wife before the learned Court below that the original
application was preferred by the petitioner-wife against the
respondent-husband in the year 2003, which came to be decided
in the year 2012, and that since then, much time had elapsed,
and that owing to reasons of inflation and changed financial and
social circumstances, the application preferred by her under
Section 127 Cr.P.C., for enhancement of maintenance ought to
allowed by the learned Family Court. However, the same came to
be rejected by the learned Court below vide the impugned order
dated 10.02.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife made a limited
submission that the petitioner-wife is unable to sustain herself on
a meagre maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month, which
was awarded to her in the year 2012, as a result of the
aforementioned application filed by her in the year 2003. And
that, simply owing to the passage of time since then, the
maintenance amount ought to be appropriately and sufficiently
enhanced. And that therefore, the impugned order rejecting the
application preferred by the petitioner-wife, for enhancement of
(Downloaded on 26/11/2022 at 12:00:54 AM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-422/2022]
maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. ought to be quashed and
set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
husband vehemently opposed any enhancement of maintenance
and submitted that the conduct of the petitioner-wife ought to be
kept in consideration; that she filed multiple criminal cases against
the respondent-husband, that she did not appear, and refused to
depose afresh, despite filing fresh cases in the concerned Court
below. That despite arriving at a compromise in the year 2017,
and agreeing to withdraw the pending criminal cases against the
respondent-husband, the petitioner-wife wilfully did not comply
with the same and sought to harass the respondent-husband. And
that, in mediation also, the same exercise was repeated once
again in the year 2018, wherein the petitioner-wife agreed to a
maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- with the condition that she
would withdraw pending criminal cases instituted by her against
the respondent-husband.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband further
submitted that the petitioner-wife willfully did not make the lawful
compliance. And that, owing to the submissions made
hereinabove, the learned Court rightly rejected the application for
enhancement of maintenance preferred by the petitioner-wife,
vide the impugned order.
6. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
7. This Court observes that the parties made multiple attempts
in connection with the dispute in question, including through
(Downloaded on 26/11/2022 at 12:00:54 AM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-422/2022]
mediation, however, the same could not bear a fruitful result and
the parties have remained contentious with one another.
8. This Court further observes, without delving into the merits
of the case, that the petitioner-wife was awarded a monthly
maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- in the year 2012. At that
time, the income of the respondent husband, was taken to be
about Rs.6,000/-.
9. This Court also observes that the present petition ought to
be entertained on the sole ground that 10 years have elapsed
since the petitioner-wife was awarded a monthly maintenance of
Rs. 1,500/- by the learned Court below.
10. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the
present petition deserves to be partly allowed.
11. Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order
dated 10.02.2022, the amount of monthly maintenance payable to
the petitioner-wife by the respondent-husband is enhanced to
Rs.5,000/-, from the date of filing of the application under Section
127 Cr.P.C. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
