Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1538 (RAJ)

Geeta v. Roopa Ram

2015-08-18

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant 482 petition has been filed by Geeta W/o Roopa Ram and two minor daughters Ms. Pinky and Ms. Pushpa in which it is prayed that respondent is not maintaining them, therefore, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siwana, District Barmer and along with the said application a prayer was made for granting interim maintenance in favour of the petitioners. 2. The learned trial court passed an order on 27.6.2014 whereby the interim maintenance of Rs.500/- is allowed to the petitioners which is very meager amount, therefore, the amount of maintenance may kindly be enhanced appropriately. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that husband of the petitioner Geeta is working on the post of Teacher substantively and his salary is Rs.30,000/- per month but at the time of granting interim maintenance, only Rs.500/- interim maintenance is allowed by the learned trial court, which is meager amount because in Rs.500/- it is not possible for the petitioners to survive and to get the education for two minor daughters, therefore, it is prayed that the order of interim maintenance may kindly be enhanced upto Rs.15,000/- because the respondent husband is getting Rs.30,000/- salary because he is working as teacher, so also, having his agricultural land from which he is earning more than Rs.5 lacs in a year. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that respondent is ready to allow the petitioners to live with him but they themselves are living separately, therefore, no interference is called for in the order of maintenance. It is also submitted that petitioner is ready and will to explain his income from profession of teacher for maintenance of children including the petitioners and his own parents, therefore, the instant petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no question of maintain 3 persons in Rs.500/-, therefore, the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned trial court is not justified. More so, it is not in consonance with basic principle of law. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner Geeta, Sh. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no question of maintain 3 persons in Rs.500/-, therefore, the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned trial court is not justified. More so, it is not in consonance with basic principle of law. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner Geeta, Sh. Roopa Ram is working on the post of Teacher and this fact is admitted by him in the reply filed by him, therefore, obviously, he is getting near about Rs.30,000/- per month. 6. In view of the above and upon the fact that petitioner Geeta is 36 years old and Ms. Pinky is 6 years old and Ms. Pushpa is 10 years old, they are entitled for enhancement of maintenance. 7. In view of the fact that respondent is substantive teacher in the Education Department, I deem it appropriate to enhance the interim maintenance. 8. Consequently, the instant or misc. petition is allowed and the interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial court which is Rs.500/- per month to the petitioners is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/- from the date of order which is 27.6.2014 and the said amount shall be paid to the petitioners in the first week of every month along with Rs.2,000/- towards the arrear of interim maintenance. The petitioners may submits this order before the school in which the respondent is working and the school authorities are directed to deduct Rs.12,000/- from the salary of the respondent and pay to the petitioners every month. The learned trial court is directed to decide the application of interim maintenance expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed.