Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 528 (RAJ)

Maniksha @ Pinki Brahmin v. Naveen Kumar Dave

2019-02-14

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., 1973 for the following relief : It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to set aside and quash order dated 19.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Cases, Sirohi in Criminal Revision Petition No.81/2018 and order passed by C.J.M., Sirohi dated 08.3.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.86/2016 may kindly be restored." 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife moved an application under section 125 Cr. P.C., 1973 for grant of interim maintenance against respondent no.1-husband before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, wherein the learned Magistrate while allowing the application vide order dated 08.3.2017 granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/- in favour of wife; Rs. 5000/- & Rs. 4500/- respectively in favour of son and daughter, totalling Rs. 13,500/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 9.5.2016. 3. The respondent no.1-husband being aggrieved of the order dated 08.3.2017 preferred revision and the learned revisional court while partly allowing the revision vide order dated 19.11.2018 set aside maintenance granted in favour of petitioner-wife, however, affirmed order of trial court to the extent it relates to grant of interim maintenance in favour of son & daughter and further the interim maintenance was made payable from the date of order i.e. 08.3.2017, hence, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., 1973 4. Counsel for the petitioner-wife argued that petitioner housewife and is not working anywhere, thus, is very much entitled to receive maintenance. As a matter of fact, respondent-husband moved an application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage, whereas the petitioner filed petition under section 9 and was trying to save her matrimony. Moreover, as per counsel for the petitioner the husband is living a lavish lifestyle and is in a position to sufficiently maintain his wife. 5. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. 6. After hearing arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that deeper observation in order of interim maintenance may impact adjudication of final maintenance, this Court with the agreement of counsel for the parties, dispose of this misc. 5. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. 6. After hearing arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that deeper observation in order of interim maintenance may impact adjudication of final maintenance, this Court with the agreement of counsel for the parties, dispose of this misc. petition by ordering as follows : (1) If after final adjudication any maintenance is made out in favour of petitioner no.1, then the same shall be paid to her from the date of filing the initial application. (2) The respondent no.2 shall continue to pay arrears of maintenance to petitioners No.2 & 3, which shall be subject to final adjudication of maintenance. (3) The final determination of maintenance shall be made without prejudice to interim determination of maintenance. (4) Both the impugned orders shall not prejudice either of the parties on merits before the learned trial court at the time of adjudication of final maintenance. (5) The learned trial court shall finally adjudicate the issue of maintenance within a period of three months from getting certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that both the parties shall co-operate with the learned court below to decide the matter in time.