CRLR/46/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 304 UK

CRLR No.46 of 2023
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the revisionist through video conferencing.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holder for the State.

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2022, by which, the respondent no.3, son has been granted maintenance, but the respondent no.2, the wife has been denied maintenance on the ground that she is capable to maintain herself.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that, in fact, the respondent no.2 is earning about `2 Lacs per month, she did not file her affidavit in terms of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021)2 SCC

324. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance, which the revisionist has been directed to pay is excessive.

In cases, where both the spouse/parties are employed, in order to decide an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance of the children, first and foremost, the amount that is required by the children is assessed and thereafter, keeping in view of income of both the partners, directions may be issued. But, it is argued that it has not been done in this case.

Issue notices to the respondent nos.2 and 3, returnable within four weeks. Steps to be taken within a week.

List this case on 19.04.2023. Urgency Application (IA) No.1 of 2023.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 19.01.2023 Sanjay