Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 89 (RAJ)

Sandeep v. Renu

2018-01-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Sandeep Vyas has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 20.1.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in appeal whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara allowing the application preferred by the respondent under Section 23 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act and directing the petitioner to make payment of interim maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month to the respondent as well as minor child of the petitioner and the respondent. 2. Shri Nitin Trivedi learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the order dated 7.2.2015 passed by learned Family Court, Bhilwara in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby, Smt. Renu and Dheeraj being the wife and minor child of the petitioner were awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 2500/- per month respectively. Shri Trivedi urged that ex-facie, from the material available on record, the award of maintenance to the respondent Smt. Renu is not justified because the lady upon being examined in evidence admitted that she was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He contends that as per the salary slip placed on record of the proceedings, the petitioner is drawing a meager sum of Rs. 4500/- per month and thus, it would be impossible for him to pay total maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month to the respondent wife and the minor child. He thus urges that the order of maintenance should be suitably modified. 3. Shri Chundawat learned counsel representing the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and tried to buttress that as a matter of fact, the admission regarding the income of the respondent as appearing in her sworn statement appears to be a result of typographical error. As per Shri Chundawat, it is impossible to believe that by doing sundry job of tailoring, the respondent would be able to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. He thus implored the Court to reject the instant misc. petition. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. 10,000/- per month. He thus implored the Court to reject the instant misc. petition. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 5. Ex-facie, the total thrust of arguments advanced by Shri Chundawat to the pleas raised by Shri Trivedi was based on a contention that the income of Rs. 10,000/- per month as stated by Smt. Renu in her statement recorded during the inquiry is the result of a typographical error. Had there been an iota of truth in the said submission, the respondent could have made an application to the trial court for rectification in the said figure. However, manifestly, no such rectification application has been moved till date. Considering, the fact that the respondent has admitted having a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- from tailoring job and as she has already been awarded maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., without any doubt in the mind of this Court, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Likewise, as the petitioner's salary slip indicates that he is being paid a paltry sum of Rs. 4500/- per month by his employer, the maintenance awarded to the child also deserves to be reduced to a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month in these proceedings. However, it is made clear that the instant order shall not in any manner effect the order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent and her child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court. 6. Thus, the instant misc. petition is allowed in part. The order of maintenance dated 29.7.2013 passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 20.1.2016 i.e. learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in revision is quashed and set aside to the extent of the respondent Smt. Renu. Furthermore, the maintenance awarded to the minor child of the petitioner and the respondent in these proceedings is reduced to a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month effective from the date of this order. 7. Stay petition is also disposed of.