Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Shah vs Smt. Shilpa Jain (2024:Rj-Jd:7792) on 14 February, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:7792]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5175/2022
Vijay Shah S/o Shri Kishore Shah, Aged About 43 Years, R/o M/s
Kanmal Kevalchand Jain Chudigharbajra Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Shilpa Jain W/o Shri Vijay Shah, R/o 222 B,
Laxminagar Paota C Road Jodhpur Raj.
2. Krish @ Samay S/o Shri Vijay Shah, Aged About 14
Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Applicant No. 1
Smt. Shilpa Jain W/o Shri Vijay Shah R/o 222 B,
Laxminagar Paota C Road Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salman Agha
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
14/02/2024
The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section
482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned Family Court No. 3,
Jodhpur in case No. 237/2019 (56/2020), whereby the learned
Family Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/-
per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the
application to his son (respondent No. 2 herein).
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is working as a salesman in a shop and his monthly
income is Rs. 9,000/-. Further, it is submitted that the respondent
No. 1 is a highly qualified lady and is working as a teacher in
Sanskar International School and her monthly income is
[2024:RJ-JD:7792] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5175/2022]
Rs.20,145/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a
copy of the certificate issued by Sanskar International School so
as to show the monthly income of the respondent No. 1. It is
submitted that while keeping in mind the financial position of the
petitioner, the amount of interim maintenance as ordered by the
learned Family Court is exorbitantly high. It is further submitted
that it is a settled law that if both husband and wife are earning,
then the responsibility of maintaining the child is on both the
parents and the burden to maintain the child cannot be cast only
on the father. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may
be quashed and set aside and the present criminal miscellaneous
petition may be allowed.
3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 27.09.2018 passed
in Dinesh Kumar and Ors. vs. Smt. Shobha Chouhan S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1055/2012, decided on
27.09.2018, wherein this Court while considering the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Padmja Sharma Vs.
Ratan Lal Sharma reported in AIR 2000 SC 1398, reduced the
amount of interim maintenance.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
5. As regards sharing of interim maintenance amount is
concerned, it is apparent that in the present case, both the
parents are employed. The petitioner is working as salesman and
wife-respondent No. 1 is working as a teacher. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the certificate
showing that respondent No. 1 is employed as a teacher. There
[2024:RJ-JD:7792] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5175/2022]
may be a marginal difference in the income of the petitioner and
the respondent No. 1, but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Padmja Sharma (supra), both parents
are required to share the burden of maintenance awarded to their
child/children.
6. In view of the above, the present criminal miscellaneous
petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated
11.03.2022 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay
the monthly interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 to the tune
of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application.
It is clarified that the petitioner shall pay monthly interim
maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- till the respondent
No. 2 becomes major as well as till the final disposal of the main
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also made clear that
any finding recording in the present order shall not prejudice the
case of the either party while deciding the main application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
7. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
178-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
