Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 959 (RAJ)

Prashant Bhargava v. State of Raj.

2011-05-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Special Court Counterfeit Currency, Jaipur City Jaipur in criminal appeal No. 07/2009 allowing the appeal against the order dated 18.4.2009 whereby the Judicial Magistrate No. 20 Jaipur City Jaipur granting maintenance in the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month increased to Rs. 15,000/- per month. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 2 married on 6.2.2004 at Gurgaon Haryana according to Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner is paying Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-petitioner No. 2 in pursuance to the order dated 18.4.2009 of the Judicial Magistrate No. 20 Jaipur City Jaipur. This order dated 18.4.2009 has been challenged by the non-petitioner No. 2 by way of filing appeal before the Sessions Judge Jaipur City for increasing the amount of maintenance and the same was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Counterfeit Currency Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Special Judge after hearing both the parties increased the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- looking to her ailment of damaging of both kidnies and failure of renal system and she is living with her parents, by a detailed order dated 23.10.2009. In such types of ailment the medicines are very expensive. 3. Mr. Anand Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the package of the petitioner is about 8.5 lac per year but out of which he has to pay the installments of Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- per month for a Flat purchased by him at Bangalore. He has further contended that his father has retired and his parents are dependent on him. He has also purchased a car for which installments are to be paid monthly. The petitioner has contended that he is prepared to keep her wife but she has refused to reside with him and is residing with her parents. The non-petitioner No. 2 is working as Accountant in Gyan Vihar College. In these circumstances it was prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. 4. Mr. The non-petitioner No. 2 is working as Accountant in Gyan Vihar College. In these circumstances it was prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. 4. Mr. Ajit Singh Lunia, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner No. 2 has contended that the non-petitioner No. 2 is suffering from a serious ailment of kidney for which she requires costly medicines and expenditure for dialysis. The learned counsel invited my attention to the expenditure bill for the period June 2007 to Feb. 2008 amounting to Rs. 96,000/- incurred by the non-petitioner No. 2 on her treatment. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 that it was the duty of the petitioner to look after his seriously ill wife after marriage. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 18.4.2009 and the order of the appellate Court dated 23.10.2009 increasing the maintenance amount from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The order passed by the appellate Court is just and proper. It is very necessary for the wife of the petitioner to get her expensive treatment at her level when her husband is not supporting her. The order of the appellate Court increasing the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is just and proper. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as Accountant in Gyan Vihar College is devoid of merit as it is not possible for a person suffering from ailment of kidney to work as accountant. The non-petitioner No. 2 is residing with her parents. The petitioner who is getting more than 8.5 lac per year as package being Engineer in the Multinational Company is in a position to maintain her wife and since he is not maintaining her, the order passed by the appellate to pay maintenance and expenses for medicines in the amount of Rs. 15,000 per month is just and proper. 6. For these reasons, I do not think it proper to interfere in the order of the appellate court dated 23.10.2009 and the same is confirmed and the misc. petition stands dismissed.