Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1112 (RAJ)

Gayatri v. Gopi Lala Sharma

2012-05-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Case No. 494/2004, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was partly allowed. 2. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that firstly, the quantum of maintenance amount is on the lower side and secondly, that the maintenance amount should have been directed to be paid to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of the order as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has led sufficient evidence on the record to the effect that the respondent, who is her husband was earning sufficiently by running his own photo state shop and by doing work of accounts. He therefore, submits that the amount of maintenance be enhanced and direction be issued to make payment of the amount of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner but he is not able to justify the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby the award of maintenance has been made effective from the date of the order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Saygo Bni v. Chueeru Bajrangi reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 1007 , this Court is of the opinion that no justifiable reasons have been given in the order impugned as to why the application for maintenance was being allowed from the date of the order. So far as the quantum of the maintenance is concerned, since the order impugned was passed in the year 2008, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall be better advised to move application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code seeking enhancement of the maintenance. 7. So far as the quantum of the maintenance is concerned, since the order impugned was passed in the year 2008, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall be better advised to move application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code seeking enhancement of the maintenance. 7. In the event of such an application being filed, the learned trial Court shall be under an obligation to consider the same in accordance with law and keeping in view the rise in the cost of living. 8. Resultantly, this revision petition succeeds. The order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur is modified. Now the petitioner shall be entitled to receive the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 1300/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 20.7.2004. If the respondent does not deposit the maintenance amount as well as the arrears within. a period of four months from today, the learned Family Court shall forthwith issue warrant of recovery of maintenance amount as well as the arrears as the case may be.Petition allowed. *******