Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1327 (RAJ)

Sarita v. Manoj Jangid

2011-07-08

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. These two revision petitions relate to the same matter, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Copy of the order may be placed in each file. 3. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of these revision petitions are that Smt. Sarita and Master Umesh, who are wife and son of Shri Manoj Kumar Jangid respectively, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned trial court. 4. Amongst others it was prayed by them that Rs. 7,500/- per month may be awarded as maintenance to them. It was stated that at present the salary of Shri Manoj Jangid is Rs. 15,000/- per month. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the respective parties allowed the prayer made on behalf of them and awarded Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. The learned trial court also ordered that Shri Manoj Jangid shall also pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the education expenses of Master Umesh. 6. Dissatisfied by the amount awarded by the trial court Smt. Sarita and Master Umesh filed Appeal No. 63/2010 whereas Shri Manoj Jangid separately fled Appeal No. 96/2010 before the appellate court. The learned appellate court vide orders dated 23.11.2010 separately decided each of these appeals and dismissed them. 7. Feeling aggrieved with the orders passed by the learned appellate court each of the parties has filed these criminal revision petitions before this Court, while Smt. Sarita and Master Umesh have prayed for enhancement of the amount of maintenance and have also prayed that the amount should have been awarded from the date of the application and not from the date of the order of the trial court whereas Shri Manoj Jangid has challenged the order passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court with the prayer that no maintenance order should have been made. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the relevant provisions and the record made available for my perusal. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the relevant provisions and the record made available for my perusal. 9. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and relevant legal provisions, I am of the view that the amount of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be adequate and it requires proper enhancement and the amount of maintenance should have been awarded from the date of the application. It is an admitted fact that Shri Manoj Jangid is working in Air Force and he is at present getting more than Rs. 20,000/ - per month as salary. There is no evidence available on record showing that Smt. Sarita has a source of income to maintain herself and the son of the parties. It is also an admitted fact that the age of Master-Umesh is about 10 years and he is studying in a school at Jaipur. 10. Section 20 of the Act, apart from other things provides that the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include maintenance also for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any. This provision also provides that the monetary relief granted under this provision shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. It is also provided that the Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 11. Thus, it is clear that the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the aggrieved person must be adequate, fair and reasonable. So, I am of the view that the monthly maintenance amount should be increased from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 7,500/- per month and the amount at this rate should be awarded from the date of application. 12. Learned counsel for Shri Manoj Jangid has failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. So, I am of the view that the monthly maintenance amount should be increased from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 7,500/- per month and the amount at this rate should be awarded from the date of application. 12. Learned counsel for Shri Manoj Jangid has failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. It is an admitted fact that respondent-Smt. Sarita is legally wedded wife of Shri Manoj Jangid and out of their wedlock son Master Umesh was born and at present he is residing with Smt. Sarita, his mother. Thus, Smt. Sarita has to maintain not only herself but also the son of the parties. 13. Consequently, the revision petition filed on behalf of Shri Manoj Jangid being devoid of any substance is, hereby, dismissed whereas the revision petition filed on behalf of Smt. Sarita and Master Umesh is partly allowed and it is ordered that Shri Manoj Jangid shall pay Rs. 7,500/- per month as maintenance to Smt. Sarita and Master Umesh from the date of application filed under Section 12 of the Act. If in compliance of order of the trial court and the appellate court any amount has already been paid, that amount would be adjusted in the amount to be paid on the above rate and rest of the amount accrued upto 31st July, 2011 shall be paid upto 31st August, 2011, whereas from the month of August 2011 the amount (Rs. 7,500/-) per month shall be paid upto 10th of each month. The rest of the orders passed by both the courts below are maintained. Revision dismissed.