Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 604 (RAJ)

Vaishali v. State of Rajasthan

2013-03-21

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur allowing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed that the petitioner no. 1 (wife of the respondent) shall be entitled to receive maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month. He has directed that the petitioner no. 2 (minor son of the respondent) shall be entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. 2. The revision has been preferred on the ground that the amount of maintenance which has been awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court is very meager looking to the fact that the respondent no. 2 is a Government servant working as a stenographer in the Judicial Court at District Pali. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by no stretch of imagination a sum of Rs. 500/- can be said to be a befitting and sufficient amount of maintenance for providing day to day sustenance for the minor boy. Learned counsel submits that the respondent's disregard to the court proceeding is writ large from the very fact that he did not go the court for cross examining the witness who were being examined in the Court. Thus, he submits that the version of the petitioner no. 1 remains un-controverted. He submits that the petitioner no. 1 was assaulted during her pregnancy and was turned out of her house and thereafter no maintenance was provided to her. He further states that the respondent is working as a stenographer in the Courts and earning a salary of nearly Rs. 25,000/- per month. Learned counsel thus submits that the wife and son are each entitled to ⅓rd of the salary earned by the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the respondent did not cross examine the petitioner no. 1 before the trial court. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned. The fact regarding respondent being employed as a stenographer in the judicial courts is not disputed. 1 before the trial court. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned. The fact regarding respondent being employed as a stenographer in the judicial courts is not disputed. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of maintenance which has been awarded to the petitioner no. 1 the wife at the rate of Rs. 3000/- cannot be said to be on the lower side. However, the amount of maintenance which has been awarded to the child i.e. the petitioner No. 2 @ Rs. 500/- per month is on the extreme on the lower side. It is unbelievable as to how a child of 11 months can be provided sustenance by this meager amount. By now the child must have crossed the age of 3 years, and therefore, the expenses of schooling also must have been added to his other day to day needs incurred. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance. 6. Resultantly, the revision is allowed in part and the order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month is maintained but so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned the order dated 10.1.2011 is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance payable to him is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of this order. The trial court shall enforce the order of maintenance. If the respondent does not voluntarily deposit the amount of maintenance in the Court on 10th of each month, the trial court shall forthwith issue warrant for recovery of the amount.Revision partly allowed. *******