Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1064 (RAJ)

Gajendra Singh Yadav v. Smt. Bindu Yadav

2013-05-23

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2012(221/2012), whereby the appeal of the appellant-petitioner filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') was dismissed, upholding the order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Complaint No. 07/2011, whereby learned Trial Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay monthly interim maintenance towards expenses of education etc. Rs. 22,000/- to the respondent-wife and children. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-wife and children Miss Garima and Aryan through guardian mother filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 alleging therein that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner husband is treating her with cruelty, therefore, she cannot live with the petitioner and a prayer for maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month was made in the application against the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the said application in the terms that he is ready and willing to keep the respondent wife with him and his carry home salary is Rs. 38,000/- per month. 4. After considering rival submissions of the parties and the evidence adduced, learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.03.2012 directed the petitioner-husband to pay monthly interim maintenance allowance towards education expenses etc. Rs. 22,000/- to the respondent-wife and children from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.12.2011. On appeal by the petitioner, learned Appeal Court vide order dated 18.05.2012 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/husband has preferred present revision petition, while reiterating the same contentions, which were raised before the Courts below and further contending that the Courts below have committed a serious illegality in passing impugned orders. He has also contended that the findings arrived at by the Courts below are totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have totally ignored legal aspect of the matter and mechanically recorded the erroneous findings. He has also contended that the findings arrived at by the Courts below are totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have totally ignored legal aspect of the matter and mechanically recorded the erroneous findings. Learned both the Courts below ignored the fact that the total carry home salary of the petitioner is only Rs. 38,000/- per month, therefore, in such a case, awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs. 22,000/- to the wife is highly excessive and unreasonable inasmuch as the petitioner has to maintain his other family members and parents out of carry-home salary. It is further contended that the complaint has been filed by the respondent-wife with ulterior motives inasmuch as she wants the petitioner to come to US and live with her parents by leaving the present petty job in India. The respondent-wife has already sent one of the children to the US permanently without the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner is ready and willing to keep the respondent-wife with him. Therefore, impugned orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife supported the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below and submitted that the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders and granted interim maintenance etc. from the date of filing of the application. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the view that the provision is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife and children. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. 8. In fixing quantum of interim maintenance, standard of living consistent with the status of the family must be taken into consideration. Neither income nor poverty is an answer to a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. 8. In fixing quantum of interim maintenance, standard of living consistent with the status of the family must be taken into consideration. Neither income nor poverty is an answer to a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. It ensures socio-economic rights of a woman and protect her from vagrancy. The husband-petitioner can not say that he is unable to maintain his wife and children. In case wife and children were to live together, even then the petitioner-husband would have to maintain the wife and children. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner-husband has been promoted from the post of JEN to the post of AEN and he is working on the said post. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the respondent-wife and children have been living separately from the petitioner/husband/father and admittedly it is responsibility of the petitioner/husband/father to look after and maintain his wife and children. In my considered view and in the conclusion, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner being husband-father has to maintain and must maintain his wife and children, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, the revision petition, having no merit, is, hereby, dismissed. 11. Stay Application No. 1625/2012 also stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******