Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 287 (RAJ)

Mahant Ragunathdas v. Phuli Devi

2024-02-15

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - These two petitions arising out of order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.137/2021 (134/2022) (NCV No.137/2021) were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4546/2023 has been filed by the petitioner - Mahant Raghunathdas (husband) assailing the order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the respondent (wife) to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month for herself; whereas, the Criminal Misc. Petition No.3325/2023 is filed by the respondent Phuli Devi (wife) for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Mahant Raghunathdas (husband) is aged about 92 years and the respondent Phuli Devi (wife) is aged about 75 years. Learned counsel submitted that respondent (wife) is presently living with her son namely Shri Chetan Jani and the petitioner (husband) being aggrieved and disturbed by the behavior of his son Chetan Jani filed an application for interim maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur vide order dated 05.08.2019 directed Chetan Jani not to misbehave and maintain cordial relations with his father. It has further been ordered that Chetan Jani would pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his father. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent (wife), under the influence of her son - Chetan Jani and only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner (husband) has preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance. It was contended that the petitioner (husband) is an old man of 92 years of age, who is unable to live independently and presently he is living in the house of his daughter and son-in- law. Drawing attention of the court towards the medical reports of the petitioner (husband), learned counsel submitted that he has recently suffered a fracture and is completely bed-ridden. It is not possible for the petitioner to perform his routine work without proper assistance and he is not having adequate source of income to pay the interim maintenance as awarded by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur. 5. It is not possible for the petitioner to perform his routine work without proper assistance and he is not having adequate source of income to pay the interim maintenance as awarded by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur. 5. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the respondent (wife) is living with his son, who is earning very well and therefore, she does not require any interim maintenance from the petitioner (husband). Learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur has committed a gross illegality in awarding interim maintenance in favour of the respondent (wife) as there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner intentionally neglected his wife. It was thus, prayed that the impugned order dated 08.05.2023 is bad in law and therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (wife) submitted that she being a legally wedded-wife of the petitioner (husband) is entitled to receive interim maintenance from her husband. The petitioner (husband) is living separately without any sufficient cause. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner (husband) is recipient of monthly income of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- from various sources. There is no legal separation decree or order by a competent court, awarded to the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife). The petitioner (husband) is intentionally and deliberately causing mental harassment to the respondent (wife). 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of interim maintenance passed by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur with direction to award Rs. 3,000/- per month is neither commensurate with the monthly income of the petitioner (husband) nor adequate. It is difficult for the respondent (wife) to maintain herself, owing to her old age with the meagre amount of Rs. 3000/- per month. It was further contended that the amount of interim maintenance determined by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur, payable by the petitioner (husband) to the respondent (wife) is a paltry sum and therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. 3000/- per month. It was further contended that the amount of interim maintenance determined by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur, payable by the petitioner (husband) to the respondent (wife) is a paltry sum and therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:- "No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." 10. Indisputably, the respondent (wife) is living separately from the petitioner (husband). A careful perusal of the documents available on record before the family Court No.3, Jodhpur indicate that nothing was brought on record to show that the respondent (wife) is not entitled to any allowance from her husband as she is living in adultery or living separately without any sufficient reason. The record of the case also indicates that the petitioner (husband) is living with her daughter whereas the respondent (wife) is living with her son. 11. It may be true that various litigations have been initiated by both the parties under the influence of their children, who themselves appear to be Senior Citizens but then also at this stage it cannot be said that the respondent (wife) has filed a false case against the petitioner (husband). 12. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C. a wife is not entitled to allowance of maintenance, if she is living in adultery, or has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 13. This Court on careful scrutiny of the cored does not find any material to indicate that the respondent (wife) is capable to maintain herself through her independent income. This court also finds that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent (wife) is intentionally living separately from her husband (petitioner). 14. On the contrary, the respondent (wife) has successfully been able to establish that the petitioner (husband) apart from the payment of Rs. This court also finds that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent (wife) is intentionally living separately from her husband (petitioner). 14. On the contrary, the respondent (wife) has successfully been able to establish that the petitioner (husband) apart from the payment of Rs. 8,000/- received by him per month from his son - Chetan Jani in compliance of the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, is also having sufficient income from other sources such as agricultural income, rental income etc. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court irrespective of the age and ailments from which the petitioner (husband) may be suffering, since he is recipient of regular monthly income from various sources, he cannot be permitted to deny/neglect the maintenance of his wife i.e. respondent No.1. 16. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is aged about 92 years and he is suffering from various ailments coupled with the fact that presently he is living with his daughter and son-in-law, this court is of the opinion that the amount of interim maintenance determined by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur payable to the respondent (wife) appears to be just and proper and therefore, the prayer for enhancement made on behalf of the respondent (wife) is hereby rejected. 17. Consequently, both the Criminal Misc. Petitions are dismissed and order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur is upheld.