Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1074 (RAJ)

Shakti Singh v. Pinki

2021-07-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Shakti Singh for assailing the order dated 11.2.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.366/15 whereby, the application preferred by the respondents Pinki and Daksh, being the wife and son respectively of the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was accepted and the petitioner was directed to make payment of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to his wife Pinki and Rs.2,000/- to his minor son Daksh. 2. Ms. Deepika Purohit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and unjustified. The petitioner himself is a lowly paid employee in the Bhoomi Vikas Bank and draws a meager salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and as such, there was no justification for the court below to have awarded excessive maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to the two respondents. 3. I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. 4. The respondent Smt. Pinki set up a clear case in her application that she was harassed and humiliated by the petitioner and was turned out of the matrimonial home. Her husband works as a peon in the Bhoomi Vikas Bank and drew salary between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and that he had married another woman. The petitioner tried to contest the case by claiming that his wife was herself earning significantly by working in Maharaj Showroom. He also denied drawing salary to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The learned Judge, Family Court appreciated the evidence available on record and came to a conclusion that the petitioner is an able bodied man and has sufficient means to maintain his wife and son. He had treated his wife with cruelty and turned her out with the minor son. A paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded to the respondents by way of maintenance. 5. After considering the entirety of circumstances as available on record, I am of the opinion that the legal and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and child cannot be disputed. A paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded to the respondents by way of maintenance. 5. After considering the entirety of circumstances as available on record, I am of the opinion that the legal and moral obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife and child cannot be disputed. There is ample evidence on record to satisfy that the paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- per month which has been awarded to the two respondents by way of maintenance is, in no manner, excessive and is rather on the lower side. Thus, there exists no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference therein in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Hence, the instant revision fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay application is also rejected.