Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 688 (RAJ)

Shuki Devi v. Kailash

2013-04-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 183/2010, whereby, the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur has awarded maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. 2. The misc. petition has been filed seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioner claiming the same to be on the lower side. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to the respondent - Kailash on 21.11.2007. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner- wife was continuously harassed by the respondent-husband on account of demand of dowry and, ultimately, when the demand could not be met, he turned the petitioner out of the house. The petitioner filed an application before the Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur claiming maintenance for herself. She pleaded that the respondent - Kailash was a good craftsman in stitching and was also having productive agricultural land. She pleaded the income of Kailash to be rupees forty thousand per month and claimed maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Notice of the application filed by the petitioner was issued to the respondent who did not appear for pleading the case before the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur despite service of notice. Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur proceeded to accept the application filed by the petitioner ex parte by his order dated 29.11.2011. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur held that the petitioner did not lead any evidence for showing that the income of the respondent was rupees forty thousand per month and accordingly the amount of maintenance to which the petitioner was entitled was limited @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. The petitioner has now approached this court assailing the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, Family Court, whereby, the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioner has been limited to a meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. 2,000/- per month. The petitioner has now approached this court assailing the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, Family Court, whereby, the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioner has been limited to a meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel Shri Shivnath Singh Rajpurohit appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur that the respondent earns a sum of rupees forty thousand per month. The contention was not refuted by the respondent because despite service he did not choose to appear in the family court for contesting the case. Thereupon, the proceedings were undertaken ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge, Family Court has committed a grave error in disbelieving the petitioner's version regarding the earnings of the respondent. Learned counsel therefore prays that the misc. petition be accepted and the amount of maintenance directed to be paid to the petitioner be enhanced suitably. 6. Notice of the misc. petition was issued to the respondent, but, nobody has put in appearance despite service of notice on behalf of the respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned as well as the record. 8. This Court is of the opinion that as the respondent has chosen not to defend the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur, therefore, there was hardly any scope for the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur to have disbelieved the petitioner's contention regarding the income of the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is a destitute married lady, who has been turned out of the matrimonial home without any justification. The petitioner's averments and sworn testimony regarding the income of the respondent remained un-controverted despite opportunity being provided to the complainant. The amount of Rs. 2000/- as monthly maintenance for a grown up destitute lady cannot be said to be sufficient for a dignified living by any stretch of imagination. The amount of maintenance is grossly inadequate. 9. Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed. It is hereby directed that the amount of maintenance directed to be paid to the petitioner by the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur shall be enhanced from a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to a sum of Rs. The amount of maintenance is grossly inadequate. 9. Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed. It is hereby directed that the amount of maintenance directed to be paid to the petitioner by the learned Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jodhpur shall be enhanced from a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of this order.The trial court shall enforce the order of maintenance by issuing warrants of recovery forthwith.Petition allowed. *******