Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2990 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar v. Rajesh Rathore

2006-11-06

HARBANS LAL

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. calls in question the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Kota whereby it has awarded u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. interim-maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to wife, Smt. Rajesh Rathore non-petitioner No. 1 and the like sum to Vinita, non-petitioner No. 2 minor daughter w.e.f. the date of filing of the application, i.e., 1.1.2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is mentally not fit to earn his own livelihood. He is, therefore, unable to make payment of the interim-maintenance allowance as ordered by the learned court below. He has also on the strength of Shantilal v. Smt. Sushila, 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 285 contended that no reasons having been given in the order dated 12.7.2005 for granting interim-maintenance allowance w.e.f. the date of the application, the same is not sustainable in law. According to him, the interim-maintenance should have been allowed and directed to be paid only w.e.f. the date of the order i.e., 12.7.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, wife and child has supported the impugned-order but has fairly conceded that the amount of interim-maintenance may be directed to be paid w.e.f. the date of the order, i.e., 12.7.2005 instead of from the date of filing of the application dated 1.1.2005. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions-made at the bar and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be stated at the outset that the marriage of the petitioner with non-petitioner No. 1 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that petitioner No. 2 was born to them during the subsistence of marriage between them. The petitioner is, therefore, duty bound and liable to make payment of the interim-maintenance as ordered by the court below. He has, despite the directions of this Court, not placed on record "any material to show that he is not keeping good mental health as canvassed. The amount of interim maintenance cannot be said to be exorbitant. 5. Learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has fairly and candidly conceded in view of the law laid down in the aforementioned authority that the amount of interim maintenance may be directed to be paid w.e.f. the date of the order instead of from the date of the application. 6. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed. 5. Learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has fairly and candidly conceded in view of the law laid down in the aforementioned authority that the amount of interim maintenance may be directed to be paid w.e.f. the date of the order instead of from the date of the application. 6. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.7.2005 so far as it directs payment of interim-maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month each to the wife and child is upheld and confirmed but the said amount shall be payable from the date of the order instead from the date of the application.Petition partly allowed. *******