Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 637 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-28

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate had granted a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of respondent No. 2, Smt. Beena Devi, and Rs. 500/- each in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Master Khushal and Kumari Unnati respectively, and also aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- for respondent No. 2, and to Rs. 2,500/- each for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence&Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short) against the petitioner. In the complaint, she stated that on 19.11.1999, she married the petitioner. From the marriage, two children were born. After her marriage, the petitioner and his family members started to physically and mentally torture her for dowry. Therefore, she left the matrimonial home. She is residing with her parents. Thus, she prayed for maintenance. The petitioner filed his reply and controverted the facts contained in the complaint. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 13.11.2010, the learned trial Court granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent No. 2 and Rs. 500/- each to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Against the said order, the respondent No. 2 well as the present petitioner filed appeals before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 1.3.2011, the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2 was allowed, and the learned Judge enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 3,000/- for respondent No. 2, and Rs. 2,500/- each for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the petitioner is willing to keep the respondent No. 2 and their children with him. Secondly, respondent No. 2 is staying away from the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the petitioner is willing to keep the respondent No. 2 and their children with him. Secondly, respondent No. 2 is staying away from the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Thirdly, ever since, he had met with an accident, ever since he has to take medical advice for his neurological difficulties, he has to spend Rs. 3,000/- in transportation and another Rs. 3,000/- for his medicine. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner's income is merely Rs. 12,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner finds it extremely difficult to maintain the wife and the children as directed by the learned Judge. 5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned orders. 6. According to the order dated 1.3.2011, although the petitioner had claimed that he has to pay Rs. 3,000/- for transportation and another Rs. 3,000/- for his medicine, but no evidence was produced by him to substantiate this plea. Therefore, even this Court is of the opinion that this plea could not be proved by him. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts in rejecting the said plea. 7. It is, indeed, the moral and legal responsibility of a husband to maintain his wife and children. Thus, the petitioner is required under law to maintain both his wife and his two children. Whether the wife is staying away from the petitioner for cogent reason or not, this issue cannot be decided by this Court at this initial stage. For the case is still pending before the learned trial Court. It is for the trial Court to decide this issue. 8. Even if an offer is made by the petitioner to keep the wife and the children with him, the said offer would still entail that the petitioner should maintain the wife and the children. Moreover, the offer seems to be have been made only in order to save his own skin. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. This petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******