Shambhu Singh vs Smt. Monika Kanwar
2022 Latest Caselaw 12595 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5410/2022

Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 35, Shiv Colony, Shikargarh, Jodhpur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus Smt. Monika Kanwar W/o Shri Shambhu Singh, D/o Shri Kayam Singh, R/o Plot No. 35, Shiv Colony, Shikargarh, Jodhpur. Presently Residing At Ward No. 1, Shiv Colony, In Front Of Balaji Temple, Churu (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salman Agha For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

20/10/2022

1. Instant petition preferred under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays challenge to the order dated

04.08.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Churu,

(hereinafter referred to as "the Family Court"), whereby the

petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- as

interim maintenance to his wife (respondent herein).

2. Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's

attention towards the salary slips of the petitioner and pointed out

that the petitioner is getting a net sum of Rs.28,400/- only out of

which he has to pay the rent for his accommodation and also for

the tiffin charges.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5410/2022]

3. Learned counsel argued that the learned Family Court has

passed the order for interim maintenance without considering the

relevant factors and needs of the petitioner.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the

following judgments of Hon'ble the Delhi High Court and Hon'ble

the Gujarat High Court.

(i) Sakarben Shambhubhai Rabari Vs. Shambhubhai Masharubhai

Rabari Kalotara reported in (2014) 3GLR 2108. The relevant para

of this judgment reads as under:

"Thus, while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court has to take into account not only the needs of person who claims maintenance but also the capacity, status, commitments and the obligations of person who has to pay it. If the husband has to maintain other persons like his parents, etc. reasonable allowance for their maintenance shall have to be made. It would be unjust to grant maintenance in an arbitrary manner. The party who has to pay maintenance is also not to be virtually rendered a destitute. A fair balancing of all the relevant factor is to be done by the Courts without making an emotional approach to the problem. The Court shall have to keep in mind that what is to be provided is the maintenance and it cannot have saving element in it nor is it the purpose of the Legislature to put the claimant in a luxurious position."

(ii) Sanjay Bharadwaj & Ors. Vs. The State & Anr. reported in 171

(2010) DLT 644. The relevant para of this judgment reads as

under:

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5410/2022]

"5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the parents and maintain wife. The parents had done their duty of educating them and now they cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up and must take care of themselves."

5. So far as the legal position is concerned, there cannot be any

two opinions that the Family Court should consider petitioner's

income so also his other needs, including the expenses he is

required to incur, but, then, it is an admitted case that petitioner's

monthly gross salary is 36,040/- and after deduction, he is getting

Rs.28,400/- in hands.

6. Such being the position, if the learned Family Court has

awarded a sum of Rs.13,000/- (less than 1/2 of petitioner's

income), this Court does not find it to be unreasonably high or

excessive, warranting inteference in discretionary jurisdiction of

this Court given the fact that it is an order of interim maintenance.

7. Petition, therefore, fails.

8. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 187-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)