[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Varun Jaiswal vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10108/2025
Varun Jaiswal S/o Radheshyam Jaiswal, Aged About 29 Years,
214/14/2 4Th, Hanuman Temple Road, Ambedhakar Bhawan Ke
Samne, Gokarnaharali, Bangalore. Karnatka
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Vishakha Jaiswal W/o Varun Jaiswal, Aged About 27
Years, Padru Ki Bass, Siwana, Teh. Siwana, Badmer
3. Mayank Jaiswal S/o Varun Jaiswal, Aged About 4 Years,
Padru Ki Bass, Siwana, Teh. Siwana, Badmer Minor
Through Mother Smt. Vishakha
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naval Kishor Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
Ms. Vishakha Jaiswal (present in
person)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
09/02/2026
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved
against the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Family
Court, Balotra (for short 'the trial Court'), wherein the petitioner
had preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the
proceedings pending before the Family Court, for adjustment of
the amount of maintenance of Rs. 12,000/-. This order was
passed by the Court on 03.05.2023 at Siwana, in the proceedings
under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short the Act of 2005). The learned Family Court dismissed
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 07:08:14 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-10108/2025]
the application seeking adjustment of the said maintenance
amount against the interim maintenance awarded vide order
dated 16.03.2024, stating that the said issue would be decided at
the time of final adjudication of the proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family
Court under Sections 125 (3) Cr.P.C. had fixed an initial
maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- vide order dated 16.03.2024
however, this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in
S.B.CRLMP No.3942/2024 had reduced the aforesaid amount to
Rs.20,000/-.
It is submitted that the said issue of adjustment was not
considered by the Hon'ble High Court as only the amount was
reduced. Further, in S.B CRLMP No.5846/2025 this Hon'ble Court
had given the liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate
application before the Family Court, Balotra for adjustment of the
amount. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application for
adjustment under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Family Court,
however, the Court did not interfere in the same stating that while
passing the order of maintenance dated 16.03.2024, the Court
was aware of the fact of pendency of Domestic Violence
proceedings and the application was dismissed vide order dated
04.11.2025.
It is further submitted that the trial court while passing the
order dated 16.03.2024, did not pass any specific order with
regard to the adjustment of maintenance amount, and mere
knowledge of the maintenance order under the Domestic Violence
Act was not sufficient and a specific order should have been
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 07:08:14 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-10108/2025]
passed. There was no application of mind by the learned trial court
in that respect.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the
learned Family Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 without
application of mind and without considering the issue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Rajnesh Vs. Neha
and Anr. reported in 2020 INSC 631.
The respondent No.2, present in person, disputes the facts
and argued that the application filed by the petitioner has rightly
been rejected by the trial court as the proceedings of the
Domestic Violence Act were brought to the knowledge of the trial
court and, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the
matter.
This Court has considered the matter and has gone through
the orders dated 04.11.2025 and 16.03.2024.
While passing the order of maintenance, the trial court has
not passed any specific order regarding adjustment of
maintenance amount in its order dated 16.03.2024. Merely having
knowledge of pendency of proceedings is of no consequence, and
when two proceedings of maintenance were pending, the trial
court should have passed a clear and speaking order in this
regard.
However, in the present case, the submission of evidence of
the parities is near completion and the case is fixed for defence
evidence now. The Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 has
dismissed the application on the ground that the issue would be
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 07:08:14 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-10108/2025]
considered at the time of final adjudication of the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
In view of the fact that since the evidence is near
completion, without commenting on the merits of the case, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 04.11.2025,
and expects the Family Court to specifically decide the issue of
adjustment of amount of maintenance fixed by the Court of
Siwana under the Act of 2005, at the time of final adjudication of
the case while considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha (supra). There will be no bar for
passing the order for adjusting the amount since the passing of
the interim order dated 16.03.2024.
It is further clarified that no order regarding adjustment of
maintenance was at all passed by the Family Court while deciding
the interim maintenance application vide order 16.03.2024.
Hence, the order dated 16.03.2024 shall not influence the Family
Court.
This Court further directs the trial court to dispose of the
main application expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
months.
Accordingly, with these observations the present criminal
misc. petition is disposed of.
All the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
35-mayank/-
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 07:08:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
