Amit Shaukin vs Anita Singh Alias Aarti ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 139 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Amit Shaukin vs Anita Singh Alias Aarti ... on 10 January, 2024

Author: Ashok Kumar Jain

Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:1696]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 74/2018



         Amit Shaukin S/o Shri Hansraj R/o 487/48 National
         Maket, Peeraggadhi, Delhi.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                        Versus


         Anita Singh @ Aarti W/o Amit Shaukin, D/o Jagdish
         Kiledar, R/o Kila Badi, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur
         Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Dheeraj Singhal



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

                                         Order

10/01/2024

      Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Aggrieved from order of maintenance dated 14.02.2018 in

Misc. Civil Proceedings No. 14/2016 passed by learned Additional

District Judge Bari, District Dholpur instant revision petition is

preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant on the ground that the

petitioner is a clerk in a bank and his mother is also dependent

upon him. He also submits that the amount of maintenance is too

high and the time period for which the maintenance was allowed is

against law, as the learned trial court has not considered the

evidence on record. He also submits that the applicant non-

petitioner was also employed and earning on her own but that

[2024:RJ-JP:1696] (2 of 3) [CR-74/2018]

income was not taken into consideration before awarding the

maintenance by learned trial court.

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for

respondent-applicant on the ground that after considering material

on record, instant order was passed by learned trial court and

there is no scope of interference by this Hon'ble Court.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

I am of the considered view that the maintenance was

rightly awarded from date of application, therefore, there is no

ground to challenge the impugned order on the issue that the

maintenance was awarded from date of institution of application.

As regard to financial capability of present petitioner is

concerned, both the parties have filed their affidavit before the

learned trial court and this fact was admitted by the petitioner

that he is employed as Computer Operator in PNB and total gross

salary of petitioner was ₹46,868 and take home salary was

₹34,032 per month whereas there was no documentary evidence

as regard to employment or earning of respondent/applicant is

concerned.

The fact further indicated that out of wedlock a girl child was

born and she was taken care of by respondent/applicant.

Considering aforesaid, the learned trial court has rightly

allowed the application for maintenance and there is no ground to

interfere in the order passed by learned trial court. There is no

scope to reduce any amount of maintenance.

[2024:RJ-JP:1696] (3 of 3) [CR-74/2018]

Hence, the revision petition is devoid of merits and same is

liable to be dismissed.

Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

CHETNA BEHRANI /14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)