Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravindra Kumar vs Sarita (2025:Rj-Jd:36914) on 18 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:36914]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 798/2024

Sarita W/o Ravindra Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, D/o Shri
Kishna Ram, R/o Hadda, Tehsil And Dist. Jaisalmer.
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Hajara Ram, R/o Village Bandha, Tehsil
And Dist. Jaisalmer (Raj.)
                                                                     ----Respondent
                                Connected With
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 502/2024
Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Hajara Ram, Aged About 29 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
Sarita W/o Ravindra Kumar Solanki, D/o Kishna Ram, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Hadda, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. R.S. Mankad
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. K.L. Chouhan


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

18/08/2025

1. The present revision petitions have been filed, being

aggrieved against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the

Judge Family Court, Jaisalmer in Criminal Miscellaneous Case

No.10/2023 (Smt. Sarita Soni v. Ravindra Kumar), whereby the

application filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly

allowed while directing the husband - Ravindra Kumar to pay a

monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- to the wife - Sarita from the date of

the filing of the application, i.e. from 18.09.2023.

[2025:RJ-JD:36914] (2 of 7) [CRLR-798/2024]

2. The wife (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner" for the

sake of convenience) has filed the revision petition in question

praying for enhancement of the amount and on the other hand the

husband (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent" for the sake

of convenience) has filed the revision petition challenging the

order granting maintenance.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife filed

an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the

marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.12.2021 At

the time of marriage, her father, according to his capacity, gave

various ornaments and other articles however, the respondent-

husband, at the instance of his family members, regularly used to

harass and victimize the petitioner for demand of dowry and

committed cruelty time and again upon the petitioner for the

above-mentioned purpose.

4. The petitioner further submitted that, due to the cruelty

meted out to her, she had lodged a criminal case against the

respondent-husband and further stated that since last one year

the respondent has created circumstances, making it impossible

for her to reside with him and thus she was staying with her father

and mother. The petitioner further stated that she was not earning

anything and the respondent was having the earning of

Rs.20,000/- per month and even her mother was getting pension

from B.S.F. services. She further stated that the respondent was

having two murabas of irrigated land. The petitioner thus prayed

for a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.

5. The respondent on the other hand in reply to the application

filed by the petitioner, while denying all the submissions stated

[2025:RJ-JD:36914] (3 of 7) [CRLR-798/2024]

that the petitioner had wrongly filed the case before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate. He further submitted that he was ill and

unemployed and that his family members were taking care of his

own maintenance. He further admitted that mother was receiving

pension but stated that pension was nominal. He further stated

that he was paralytic for which treatment was going on at various

hospitals and thus was not in a position to undertake any work. He

thus asserted that in view of the above-mentioned fact the

petitioner was not entitled for grant of any maintenance.

6. In support of the averments made by the petitioner, the

petitioner filed her affidavit and was cross-examined by the

learned counsel for respondent, wherein she denied the

respondent suffering from any illness and stated that he was

taking care of the agricultural land. She further stated that she

was 10th pass and used to do all domestic chores and was not

having any knowledge of stitching etc.

7. In support of his reply, the respondent had filed his affidavit

wherein he was also cross-examined and he admitted the fact of

the criminal case lodged by the petitioner against him. He further

admitted that his mother was taking care of the agricultural land

owned by them and also admitted that his father was working in

the B.S.F. and post his death the pension was received by his

mother. He further admitted that he was staying with his mother.

The respondent further exhibited six documents, being the

medical prescriptions pertaining to his treatment.

8. Strangely, in spite of the authoritative directions issued by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2

SCC 324" directing all Courts concerned to ensure that the parties

[2025:RJ-JD:36914] (4 of 7) [CRLR-798/2024]

to the proceedings in maintenance cases should file affidavits, as

specified in the judgment referred to supra, no affidavits were

filed in the case in hand, be it in the format of Enclosure 1 or

Enclosure 2 as specified in the judgment above-mentioned.

9. A perusal of the order-sheets itself will reveal that no

direction was issued by the learned Trial Court for filing of the

affidavits to both the parties as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the judgment referred to supra. Be that as it may, learned

Trial Court, thereafter proceeded to adjudicate the matter and

framed five issues for adjudication as under:-

"7. न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रार्थना पत्र के निस्तारण हे तु विचारणीय बिन्दु निम्नलिखित है :-

1.आया प्रार्थीया श्रीमती सरिता अप्राथर्थी की विधिपूर्वक विवाहिता पत्नी है ?

2.आया प्रार्थीया अप्रार्थी से युक्तियुक्त कारण से अलग रह रही है ?

3.आया प्रार्थीया अपना भरण पोषण करने में असमर्थ है ?

4.आया अप्रार्थी पर्याप्त साधनों वाला व्यक्ति है ?

5.यदि उपरोक्त बिन्दु सं . 1 लगायत 4 का उतर हां है तो भरण पोषण की उचित धनराशि क्या होगी?"

10. Strangely, in spite of framing of issues, the learned Trial

Court without any reasoning has passed the order impugned while

directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to

the petitioner-wife. Strangely there is no consideration of the

evidence, be it statement made in contexts of the affidavit or the

cross-examination or even consideration of the documents relied

upon by the respondent. Neither any reasons have been assigned

as to how the sum of Rs.5,000/- has been arrived at for the

purpose of grant of maintenance and as to whether the sum in

question was sufficient to fulfill the needs of the wife as also

whether the criteria for quantification and calculation of sum of

[2025:RJ-JD:36914] (5 of 7) [CRLR-798/2024]

maintenance as provided in the judgment of "Rajnesh vs. Neha

(2021) 2 SCC 324" was considered or not.

11. Both the learned counsels appearing for petitioner and

respondent submit that there is an apparent error on the part of

the learned Trial Court in not asking the parties to file the

affidavits and further not considering the evidence or giving any

finding qua the same while deciding the issues as framed by the

learned Trial Court and while passing the order impugned. They

thus jointly prayed that the order impugned deserves to be

quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded for

adjudication afresh by the learned Court below.

12. Having considered the submissions made and considering

the fact that the order impugned is totally unreasoned and there is

no consideration of evidence which was available on record and

rather there is total non-mentioning of the evidence which was

considered by the learned Trial Court for coming to a conclusion

while deciding the issues in hand. Not only this, the learned Trial

Court has not even referred to the criteria based upon which it

awarded the amount in question while being totally oblivious of

the specific criteria in this regard specified in the judgment of

"Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324" as referred to supra.

13. Furthermore, as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the

affidavits as specified in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 were not at

all filed nor the learned Trial Court had asked the parties to the

petition to file the same. The above-mentioned action is in direct

violation to directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of "Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324" wherein the Court has

observed as under:-

[2025:RJ-JD:36914] (6 of 7) [CRLR-798/2024]

"(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance

99. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.

100.For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B-III of the judgment.

101.The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and

circumstances of a case."

14. Thus considering the above-mentioned facts the order

impugned dated 21.02.2024 is quashed and set aside and the

matter is remanded back to the learned Judge Family Court,

Jaisalmer with a direction to get the affidavits filed by both the

petitioner and respondent, as provided in the judgment of

"Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324" and thereafter to determine

the quantum of maintenance based upon the criteria enumerated

in the judgment referred to supra and give definite findings while

passing the order on application in question. The learned Trial

Court shall expeditiously decides the proceedings, preferably

within a period of three months from today. The parties shall