Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1933 (RAJ)

Rajal @ Suman v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in revision whereby the learned revisional Court affirmed the order dated 13.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sriganganagar in Case No.33/2010 discontinuing the maintenance awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner being the respondent No.2's daughter filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat. The application came to be accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23.07.2009 and the respondent No.2 was directed to make payment of Rs. .600/- as monthly maintenance to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 filed an application submitting therein that the petitioner had gained majority upon crossing the age of 18 years on 05.10.2008 and thus, she was not entitled to claim and receive any further maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate accepted the said application by order dated 13.07.2010 and annulled the order of maintenance from 05.05.2010 i.e. the date on which the application was moved by the respondent No. 2.The petitioner challenged the order in revision, which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganga nagar by his order dated 01.04.2011. Hence, this misc. petition. 3. Shri Vipin Makkad learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim reported in 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 536 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a female child despite becoming major has a right to receive maintenance from the father till the date of her marriage. He urges that in view of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner would be entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent No.2 her father even after attaining majority. 4. Per contra, Shri M.K. Garg learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the respondent No.2 has married one Naresh on 27.03.2013 and thus, she would not be entitled to claim any further maintenance from the respondent No.2. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders impugned and the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon. 6. He submits that the respondent No.2 has married one Naresh on 27.03.2013 and thus, she would not be entitled to claim any further maintenance from the respondent No.2. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders impugned and the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon held that a female child despite gaining majority is entitled to receive maintenance from her father till the date of her marriage. It is not disputed that the petitioner was married on 27.03.2013, thus, she would be entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent No.2 till that date. 7. In this view of the matter, the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. It is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 shall make payment of the maintenance amount to the petitioner at the rate directed by the learned Magistrate till 27.03.2013. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the arrears of maintenance in three easy monthly installments in the Trial Court failing which the Trial Court shall issue warrants for recovery of arrears forthwith. The stay petition is also disposed of.