Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1110 (RAJ)

Dalpat Singh v. Bhamu Kunwar

2011-05-24

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Aspur, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed the payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 06.08.2007. 2. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the respondent-wife has left the petitioner-husband of her own volition, she is not entitled to a maintenance. Thus, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should be given to the petitioner-husband. Secondly, the petitioner-husband is not having sufficient amount of income. Therefore, he finds it extremely difficult to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Thirdly, without assigning any reason, the learned Magistrate has directed that the interim maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application. However, the said maintenance should be directed to be paid from the date of the order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. The issue whether the respondent-wife had left the petitioner-husband of her own volition, is an issue that needs to be decided by the learned trial court. It is an issue which cannot be decided by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the first contention that the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should be granted to the petitioner-husband is unaccepted. 5. Neither unemployment, nor poverty is an answer to a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since Section 125 Cr.P.C. ensures the socio -economic rights of the women and protect them from vagrancy, the petitioner-husband cannot plead that he is unable to maintain his wife. Moreover, in case the couple were to live together, even then the petitioner-husband would have to maintain the wife. Therefore, his contention that he is unable to earn sufficient amount, is no defence. 6. Lastly, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that there is no reason for the learned Magistrate to give any special reasons while directing that the maintenance should be paid from the date of filing of the application. Moreover, the Court has to be sensitive to the economic condition of the wife since she has been forced to live separately from the husband. Moreover, the Court has to be sensitive to the economic condition of the wife since she has been forced to live separately from the husband. Therefore, even if the learned Magistrate has directed that the interim maintenance amount should be paid from the date of filing of the application, there is neither any illegality or perversity in the said order. 7. For the reasons stated above, this petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. 8. However, considering the fact that the case has been pending before the learned Magistrate since 2007, considering the fact that four years have already lapsed, the learned Magistrate is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.Petition dismissed. *******