Mahendra Kumar vs Santosh (2025:Rj-Jd:36901)
2025 Latest Caselaw 9558 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Kumar vs Santosh (2025:Rj-Jd:36901) on 18 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:36901]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 571/2025

Mahendra Kumar S/o Dana Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Koorna
Tehsil And District Pali
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Santosh W/o Mahendra Kumar, Anand Nagar Near Fci Godam
Tehsil And District Pali
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

18/08/2025

1. The present revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the

Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment

dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Pali

in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.154/2023, whereby the application

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent-wife was allowed

and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of

Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from

the date of the filing of the said application i.e. 27.04.2023.

2. This Court vide order dated 16.05.2025 had issued notice to

the sole respondent subject to the condition that the petitioner

shall submit a demand draft for a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the name

of sole respondent- Smt. Santosh.

[2025:RJ-JD:36901] (2 of 3) [CRLR-571/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his

instructions the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the

amount.

4. On a query being made whether any recalling application has

been filed, the counsel submits that no application for recalling of

the order dated 16.05.2025 has been filed. He submits that the

matter may be decided on merits.

5. Having considered the order impugned and perused the

record of the case, this Court finds that the marriage between the

parties were solemnised on 27.06.2004 and thereafter due to

constant demand of dowry, the respondent was staying at her

parental house and had even lodged a criminal case under

Sections 323, 498-A & 406 against the petitioner, thus, the trial

Court has came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserted the

respondent-wife and rather re-married some other lady from

whom, he had three children. The trial Court, after considering the

entire evidence has rightly held that the petitioner himself had

created circumstances forcing the respondent to stay at her

parents' place and not with the petitioner.

6. The trial Court after considering the income of the petitioner

have directed to pay the amount of maintenance in question i.e.

Rs.3,500/-, which cannot be said to be on a higher side.

7. Considering the contents of the application as well as the

record of the case, more particularly the affidavits and the cross

examination, the amount of the maintenance has rightly been

awarded in consonance with the guidlines issued by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Ors. reported in

(2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the criteria of determining the

[2025:RJ-JD:36901] (3 of 3) [CRLR-571/2025]

maintenance and the date from which it has to be granted has

been specified. Thus, no interference is warranted in the

impugned order.

8. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J 98-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)