Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1002 (RAJ)

Poonam Pandya v. Abhishek

2022-03-29

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Dungarpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 35/2017 Smt. Poonam Pandya & Anr. v. Abhishek may kindly be modified and the respondent no. 1 Abhishek may be directed to pay maintenance sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month to the petitioners." 3. The brief facts of this case as placed before this Court by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the learned Family Court passed an order, dated 14.08.2019, whereby the respondent no. 1, the husband of the petitioner No. 1, was directed to pay monthly maintenance to each of the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1, the wife and the respondent no. 1, her husband got married on 10.12.2009; however, after some years, the respondent no. 1 began to harass her with demands for dowry, and dispossessed her from her matrimonial home, when the said demands were not fulfilled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent - husband is gainfully employed in Summon Group Textile Company, Bhilwara and earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, the husband, submits that the learned Family Court, has passed the impugned order after rightly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into due consideration the evidences placed on record before it. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 further submits that the petitioner no. 1 works in temporary positions with local government, towards the implementation of government schemes, and earns sufficient monthly stipends for the same. And that, the learned court below has rightly and fairly held that the maintenance amount should be Rs. 3,000/- for each of the petitioners. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. And that, the learned court below has rightly and fairly held that the maintenance amount should be Rs. 3,000/- for each of the petitioners. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. This Court, at the outset, observes that the income of the respondent No. 1, as is clearly reflected from the impugned order, wherein the respondent no. 1, i.e. the husband, has admitted before the learned Court below, the fact that his monthly income is Rs. 30,000/-. 10. This Court is of the opinion that as per the law itself, the husband is under a legal obligation to provide all sufficient means required for living, education and welfare to his wife and children respectively, so as to maintain themselves appropriately, and under no circumstances, he can be permitted to shirk away from such a legal duty. 11. Moreover, looking into the aspects relating, amongst others, to the academic and educational pursuits of the daughter of the parties, which is the paramount consideration, even as per the Constitutional mandate, this Court is of the considered opinion that that the discharge of the aforementioned legal duty, in the present times, is not possible without adequate financial support by the husband to his wife and children. 12. In this view of the matter, this Court makes a limited interference in the impugned order passed by the learned court below, while enhancing the monthly interim maintenance amount awarded to each of the petitioners from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- each. 13. The impugned order of interim maintenance passed by the learned court below is thus modified only to the limited extent, as indicated above. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.