[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Gaur vs Anuradha on 11 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53580]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2469/2025
Rajesh Gaur S/o Mangilal Gaur, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Jatni
Sadan, Prithvipura, Rashala Road, Opposite Bakli House, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----petitioner-husband
Versus
1. Anuradha W/o Rajesh Gaur, D/o Shivkumar Gaur R/o
Presently Vyas Colony, Nagaur, Tehsil And District Nagaur
(Raj).
2. Vansh S/o Shri Rajesh Gaur, Through His Natural
Guardian Mother-Respondent No.1 Smt. Anuradha W/o
Rajesh Gaur D/o Shivkumar Gaur, R/o Presently Vyas
Colony, Nagaur, Tehsil And District Nagaur .
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2386/2025
1. Anuradha W/o Shri Rajesh Gaud, Aged About 38 Years,
D/o Shri Shiv Kumar Gaud R/o Vyas Colony, Nagaur,tehsil
And Dist Nagaur
2. Vansh S/o Shri Rajesh Gaud, Aged About 13 Years,
Through Natural Mother petitioner-husband No. 1 Smt.
Anuradha W/o Shri Rajesh Gaud D/o Shri Shiv Kumar
Gaud Age 38 Yrs R/o Vyas Colony , Nagaur Tehsil And Dist
Nagaur
----petitioner-husbands
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rajesh Gaud S/o Shri Mangilal Gaud, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Jatni Sadan Prithvipura, Rasala Road, Opp.
Bakli House , Jodhpur
----Respondents
For petitioner- : Mr. JVS Deora
husband(s) Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Joshi
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/12/2025 at 04:24:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (2 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Order
10/12/2025
In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2469/2025
1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed assailing
the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned Addl. Session
Judge No.1, Nagaur whereby the revision petition filed by the
petitioner-husband has been rejected and the order dated
20.05.2024 was affirmed, wherein the petitioner-husband was
directed to pay the maintenance to the respondents (wife and
son) to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.8,000/- to the respondent
No.1-Anuradha and Rs.7,000/- to the minor son Vansh) from the
date of filing the application i.e. on 05.05.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.2015 the
respondents filed an application for grant of maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. while stating that the marriage between the
parties was solemnized on 23.11.2010 and out of their wedlock a
son, namely Vansh (respondent No.2 herein) was born on
16.10.2011. Thereafter, due to various atrocities inflicted by the
petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife has been living
separately since 2015. In the application filed under Section 125
of Cr.P.C., the respondent wife has asserted that the husband is
earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month but neglects/refuses to
maintain the respondents (wife and son), and the respondents are
not having any source of income and are unable to maintain
themselves, therefore, they may be awarded maintenance @
Rs.26,000/- per month.
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (3 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
3. The said application for maintenance was contested by the
petitioner-husband by way of filing reply dated 08.09.2015,
wherein the petitioner-husband has admitted the fact of marriage
but denied the averments qua the respondents are entitled for
maintenance of Rs.26,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the
petitioner husband is earning Rs.6,475/- only and not Rs.40,000/-
as claimed, it was also pleaded that the respondent-wife is well
qualified (M.A.) and earns about Rs.12,000/- per month by
working as a teacher in a private school, and that she had left her
matrimonial home out of her own will, and that the petitioner-
husband has not deserted her, therefore, she is not entitled to
seek maintenance as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the
application.
4. Thereafter the respondent-wife filed a rejoinder dated
08.12.2015 wherein she denied the averments made by the
petitioner-husband in the reply and stated that the petitioner-
husband has not filed true and accurate salary slips.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court
below framed four issues:
"1) आया प्रार्थीया अनुराधा अप्रार्थी राजेश गौड़ की विवाहिता पत्नी है और वंश
इनका पुत्र है ?
2) आया प्रार्थीया वर्तमान में अप्रार्थी से अलग निवास कर रही है एवं अपना व अपने
पुत्र का भरण-पोषण करने में असमर्थ है ?
3) आया अप्रार्थी पर्याप्त साधनों वाला व्यक्ति होते हुए भी प्रार्थीया अनुराधा एवं पुत्र
वंश का भरण-पोषण करने में इनकार एवं उपेक्षा कर रहा है ?
4) आया प्रार्थीया बिना किसी युक्तियुक्त कारण के अलग रह रही है , इसलिए वह
अप्रार्थी से किसी प्रकार का भरण-पोषण राशि प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी नहीं है ?"
6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent-wife
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (4 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
examined herself AW-1 and exhibited 23 documents (P/1 to P/23).
Per contra the petitioner-husband examined himself as NAW-1.
7. After hearing the arguments of the respected parties, the
learned Court below decided all four issues in favour of the
respondent-wife and allowed the application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner-husband herein to pay
Rs.8,000/- to respondent No.1-Anuradha (wife) and Rs.7,000/- to
respondent No.2 (the minor son-Vansh), it was also directed that
the aforesaid amount of maintenance was to be paid from the
date of filing of the application i.e. w.e.f. 05.05.2015.
8. Being aggrieved of which both the parties preferred two
separate revision petitions bearing Nos.24/2024 and 26/2024;
wherein the learned Revisional Court, after careful examination of
pleadings and evidence so led by the respective parties, vide
impugned order dated 07.03.2025 dismissed both the revision
petitions on the ground that the amount of maintenance so
awarded can neither be said to be inadequate nor can it be said to
be excessive.
9. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner-husband has
preferred the present Criminal Misc. Petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the
learned courts below have erred in awarding maintenance amount
of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the application and
further submits that looking to the facts of the case, the
maintenance amount ought to have been made effective from the
date of order. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner-husband places reliance upon the judgment
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (5 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.1.
11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife
vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner-husband, and supports the impugned
orders dated 07.03.2025 and 20.05.2024, and submits that the
order impugned does not suffer any perversity or illegality as the
learned Courts below after due examination of facts and evidence
led by parties exercised their discretion, and awarded a just
amount and further rightly ordered to pay maintenance from the
date of filing of the application; he accordingly prays for the
dismissal of the present criminal misc. petition.
12. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and also
perused the material available on record.
13. As far as the short question raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner-husband with regard to whether the learned Courts
below can award the amount of maintenance from the date of
filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or not, it would be
apt to reproduce the relevant extract of Section 125 below:
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain:
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself.
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether
married or not, unable to maintain itself.
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a
married daughter) who has attained majority, where
such child is, by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or
herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of
such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a
monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or
such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate [***]
as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to
1 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1500/2022 decided on 01.02.2024
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (6 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
such person as the Magistrate may from time to time
direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor
female child referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is
satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if
married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date
of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. Hence, sub-section (2) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for
grant of maintenance or interim maintenance from the date of
order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application. The
provision of law itself provides jurisdiction to the learned Family
Court to pass the order granting maintenance from the date of
application.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court addressed the question of awarding
maintenance with retrospective effect from the date of application
in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Anr.2. Having regard to its prior
pronouncements and the judgments rendered by different High
Courts, the Supreme Court held that the entitlement to
maintenance ought to commence from the date when the
application was filed, as the pendency of maintenance proceedings
falls beyond the applicant's purview. The Court accordingly
observed as follows:
"109.....Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon
the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of
application or from the date of the order in S. 125(2) Cr.P.C.
it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of
application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the
practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance,
we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the
applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It
2 (2021) 2 SCC 324
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (7 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that
maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.
xxxxx
113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to
bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed
by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from
the date on which the application was made before the
concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date
back to the date of filing the application, since the period
during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending
is not within the control of the applicant."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Therefore, the submission advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner-husband, that the learned trial Court erred in
directing the petitioner-husband to make payment of maintenance
from the date of application, lacks merit and cannot be accepted.
16. Further, as far as the precedent relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner-husband in Rajesh Vs. State of Raj. &
Ors. (Supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on
facts.
17. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed by the
respondent-wife on 05.05.2015, and in reply to the said
application the factum of marriage is not disputed by the
petitioner-husband, it is also evident that on account of bitter
relationship between the parties, both husband and wife have
been living separately since 2015, and there are multiple
litigations going on between them.
18. From the record it is also reflected as per Ex.P/5 i.e. Form-16
of the petitioner-husband, the salary of the husband was recorded
as Rs.41,535/-, but he still neglects/refuses to maintain his wife
and son, even when the respondent-wife has no source of income
and is unable to maintain herself and her son, therefore, the
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (8 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
learned Courts below, after duly considering all the relevant facts
and the family status of the parties has rightly awarded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- as maintenance (Rs.8,000/- for wife and Rs.7,000/-
for son) from the date of filing of the application.
19. Therefore, since: (i) in the present case, the petitioner-
husband's income is Rs.41,535/-; (ii) the respondent-wife has no
independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself
and her son; (iii) both the respondents, i.e. wife and son, have
been neglected by the petitioner-husband; (iv) both the learned
Courts below have, after examination of facts and documents
before it and considering the family status of both the parties,
fixed the maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- p.m. (Rs.8,000/- for wife
and Rs.7,000/- for son), which can neither be said to be excessive
nor arbitrary; (v) both the learned Courts below have concurrently
exercised their discretion under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to grant the
same from the date of filing the application; (vi) sub-section (2) of
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. expressly provides for the Courts to exercise
discretion to award maintenance from the date of filing the
application; and (vii) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the
right to claim maintenance may date back to the date of filing the
application, this Court does not find any force in the grounds
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, accordingly,
they are repelled. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the
learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or
arbitrariness so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
20. The present criminal misc. petition being devoid of any
substance, is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly
dismissed. However, if the petitioner-husband is directed to pay
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53580] (9 of 9) [CRLMP-2469/2025]
the entire arrears of the amount of maintenance due to him in one
stroke, it may cause inconvenience to him as well as to his family
members, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the
petitioner-husband to pay arrears of amount of maintenance in
four equal installments (within a period of one year from today).
Additionally, the petitioner-husband shall pay the regular monthly
amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.15,000/- p.m. awarded by learned
Trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024.
21. Accordingly, stay application and all other pending
application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2386/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, upon instructions
from his client, submits that the petitioner-wife does not wish to
press the present criminal misc. petition, and accordingly seeks
permission to withdraw the same.
2. Permission sought for is granted.
3. In that view of the matter, the present criminal misc. petition
is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any,
also stand dismissed.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J
365-366 Ishan/-
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 03:11:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
